Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

reply to post by BlueRaja


No one is saying that the UN voted on anything like that. We are saying that the UN said this war is illegal.

Consider this:

When the white house press secretary gives a statement do you think:
a) it's his opinion
b) it's God's opinion
c) it's the President or his adminstration's opinion
d) it's the next topic on Oprah Winfrey

The same holds true with the UN, and probably everywhere else. Please quit saying it's his opinion.

reply to post by BlueRaja


What does UNR 1441 have to do with this? We went to war for WMDs. Or wait... was it terrorists?

Darn...

reply to post by Sublime620


You went to war because bush's buddies in saudi were a little nervous of saddam and bush wanted him out of the way so he could make more money after he left office - oh and because he wanted to go one better then his dad.

The UK went to war because balir can make a bit of money off the back of being one of bush's cronies and because he's a spineless bum licking weasel.

Both have been hugely guilty of lies to the people who elected them, not to mention the international community - hopefully someone will have the nuts to hold them accountable.



[edit on 23/1/2008 by budski]

I dont want to be in an airstrike sunshine,and i wouldnt join the army just to see what its like and have the right to say what is right or not.

I prefer to do what I do,playing loud guitar in a gigging rock band .You stick to what you do best.Getting lucky killing muslims in Iraq as you said in another thread

That photo of Bush is a classic,I never realized he was a poxy cheerleader!

reply to post by budski


Here's something that you may not have seen yet:

Bush/Other Officials issued hundreds of false statements before the war

On going discussion

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


I never said that the UN Secretary General was unimportant. What I did say was that he can't by himself declare anything. It requires votes by the
security council to make something an official UN policy, not just one member's opinion.

reply to post by BlueRaja


And that's exactly what happened.

It's been shown.

It's been proved.

What's the problem? Is it that you will do anything to try and be right.

Newsflash - you have been wrong all through the thread and are doing nothing but harming your own credibility.

reply to post by Sublime620


It would appear that it's not quite as cut and dry a case that the UN said the war was illegal. There was no UN vote saying such a thing. You have one group of legal scholars with one view, and another group with another, but no black and white ruling.

en.wikipedia.org...

"International law
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law
Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441 (2002).[25] The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.[26]

The position of the US and UK is that the invasion was authorized by a series of UN resolutions dating back to 1990. Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention states that a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the US and UK claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of UN Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait.[27] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[28] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".[29]"




www.msnbc.msn.com...

"Powell, however, said: “What we did was totally consistent with international law.”

Officials in Britain, Australia and Poland also insisted the military action in Iraq was legal.

The United Nations played down Annan’s statement, which spokesman Fred Eckhard said Annan felt was no different from what he has been saying for more than a year."

reply to post by budski


That's not exactly what happened, been shown, been proved. It's not my credibility that's in question when non factual assertions are made. Kofi Annan does/did not have the authority to unilaterally declare something legal or illegal. He was expressing his opinion of what international law was, and other legal scholars had differing opinions. There was no UN vote saying it was illegal. There was no UN resolution against the US for doing anything illegal. Just because you keep repeating this mantra doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

What does UNR 1441 have to do with this? We went to war for WMDs. Or wait... was it terrorists?

Darn...

Have you read UNR 1441?

en.wikipedia.org...

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

"That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".

reply to post by BlueRaja




You're actually using wiki, and quoting from it? for this?

You do know that all that was probably written by someone in the cia or on bush's staff - it's been widely reported before that they have done this.

You know that anyone can become an anonymous member of wiki and edit definitions and articles right?

OMG

Now I've seen it all.


You know who hans blik is?
this is from his ACTUAL report;

14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been
collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using
UNMOVIC’s own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have
been consistent with Iraq’s declarations.

source

[edit on 24/1/2008 by budski]

I remember when the case for War in Iraq was being made. I remember when Colin Powell went I gave that forever embarassing speech in front of the world at the US with then CIA Director George "SLAM DUNK" Tenet sitting behind hime trying to cover his face from the cameras knowing that all that was being said was cherry picked intelligence in order to get UN approval to go to war.

The UN didnt budge, but the Colin Powell presentation now that I come to think about it was more directed to the American people, and the American people bought it, at that point President Bush realized that he didnt need it the approval of the U.N., who care anyways about the UN seriously? All those cronies were getting rich out of the "Oil for whatever you want Saddam" Program.

This goes to show how the state of corruption which we leave in this day, when you cant trust the government or International bodies. They all in it for themselves, and the regular folk on all sieds pay the consequences of their greed.

BTW: UN is worthless, someone tell me the last great thing the UN has done?

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Bunch]

Raja-

That is not entirely true. If UN resolutions are broken, the first step would be to step in and sanction or send peace keeprs. Broken resolutions do not mean any member of the UN can declare war.

Keep in mind, and hey this is from your source not mine, this quote:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council.

There is no interpretation of that. The UN Charter was broken. There was no self-defense and it was not sanctioned by the UN security council (as per previously posted).

Edited to add:

Moreover, did you even look at why we stated Iraq broke the material resolution?

Source

The U.S. has claimed Iraq has already breached the terms of the UN resolution, just 24 hours after the first weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad.
Iraq anti-aircraft gunners fired at American and British jets patrolling the northern no-fly zone Monday, the U.S. said.

This is not unusual. The Iraqis have been firing on jets in the no-fly zones since they were established; allied pilots fire back with missiles.

The UN has not sanctioned the no-fly zones, which were unilaterally imposed by the U.S. and Britain after the Gulf War.

The United States believes firing on our aircraft in the no fly zone or the British aircraft is a violation is a material breach," said White House Press Secretary Scott MacClellan, referring to UN Resolution 1441.

Check your sources.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Bunch


The reason the UN is a toothless tiger is because of incidents like this.

You can't have an organisation to implement and adjudicate international law if two of it's members (and permanent members of the security council) take no notice of what they say when it goes against what they want to do.

UK and US should be setting an example - not doing whatever they want.

reply to post by budski


When attacked in 9/11, an event in which a retaliation would have been sanctioned by the UN, it took them months to respond. This act alone allowed Usama to be uncatchable.

With Iraq, no real reason to go to war. Not sanctioned by the UN. 1 day.

reply to post by Sublime620


I'm still not sure it was even him - he was pretty strenuous about denying it, and that's the kind of thing he would have been shouting from the rooftops - that's not to say it wasn't obl, but the evidence is far from conclusive.

I'm still trying to get to grips with the whole 911 thing - all the evidence, all the theories and all the things which just don't add up.
It's going to take some time to wade through it all and try to weed out the "less stable" theories.

reply to post by budski


Is this link more acceptable, or did Bush and the CIA rewrite this too?

www.un.org...

reply to post by BlueRaja


Source
The link to that resolution was complied with by Iraqis. If you'll notice the 4644th Meeting (AM) was held on Nov 9th. This was about forcing Iraq to resume weapons inspections.

Source
My source shows that Iraq had already complied with the UN Resolution for return of weapons inspectors before Nov 19th (the date of the article).

We did not claim them to be in breach due to that, we claimed them to be in breach because we flew into their no fly zones and they fired at us.

This proves that Iraq responded to the UN Resolution in no time, which is why the UN did not sanction our war with them. The UN Security Counsil is not a bunch of suckers.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by BlueRaja


and what's that got to do with the price of fish?

the war was not sanctioned by the UN, according to the rules that the US and UK signed - which makes it illegal under international law.

Why can you not understand post after post after post, all proven?

I can't do it at the moment, but tomorrow, I shall repost ALL the evidence that has been presented - simply because you appear to have such a short memory that it needs to be constantly repeated.

After that, I'll be done with your trolling and will report, then put you on ignore if you persist.

reply to post by budski


No disagreements there, the US and the UK should be setting the example.

But the UN is a corrupt institution, how can sanctions be imposed and the institution in charge of overseeing them has cronies benefiting from those sanctions. And not only officials from the UN were taking bribes through the OFF program, other UN countries were having deals with Iraq despite sanctions that impeded them from doing so.

The UN is corrupt. Just implode the thing and start over again.