Iraq war illegal, says Annan

[fmorrow6]

this is a tad off topic, but why can't the UN seize saddam husseins assets, and rebuild iraq with that. Build new schools, hospitals etc....... If he has billions, and it was put to good use, what a beautiful country it could be.....

I for one think that anyone found guilty of the crimes he's facing shouldn't have rights.... ie. his personal property....

Just a thought......

[wunarmdscissor]

he doesnt have anything anymore.

He only had like £50 000 on him when he was cuaght and i bet either his money will be in the possesion of the USA right now or itll all have simply dissapeared thorugh various different channels.

[bathory]

Is there anyone who's not willing to completely ignore them?

John Kerry:)

[Stellar]

he doesnt have anything anymore.

He only had like £50 000 on him when he was cuaght and i bet either his money will be in the possesion of the USA right now or itll all have simply dissapeared thorugh various different channels.

270292[/snapback]

Yeah, I think I heard that some trucks carrying his money (20 billion or million or something) were intercepted during/before the war.

[Talon]

US says Iraq invasion was legal

The US has rejected the United Nations secretary-general's claim that the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

But US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the use of force against Iraq had a sound legal basis.

Earlier, US allies including the UK, Australia and Poland also said the war was backed by international law.

In Baghdad, the interim Iraqi government said Iraqis had been happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein.

'We don't agree'

Mr Boucher said military action was consistent with UN resolutions which referred to "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with UN demands.

"While we respect his views I think we have made it clear we don't agree," he said.

President Bush himself has not directly responded to Mr Annan's comments.

But while campaigning in Minnesota for November's presidential election, he reiterated the US position that Security Council resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, gave the invasion legal force.

"The United Nations looked at the same intelligence I looked at," AFP news agency quoted Mr Bush as saying. "They concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat. They voted by 15-0 in the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm or face serious consequences."

Mr Annan's criticism has particular political resonance in the US, where the Bush administration's performance on Iraq is a key issue in the election, the BBC's Jill McGivering reports from Washington.

Mr Annan's disapproval of the US-led action was already well known. But this is the first time he has used the word "illegal", our correspondent says.

'Paralysed'

Authorities in the UK, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria and Japan also rebuffed Mr Annan's claims.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard described the UN as a "paralysed" body and said it was incapable of dealing with international crises.

"The legal advice we had - and I tabled it at the time - was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," he said.

The British government - which has argued that UN resolutions provided a legal basis for intervening to topple Saddam Hussein - said the 2003 invasion was "not only lawful but necessary".

Japan's top government spokesman, Hiroyuki Hosoda, told a news conference that he would be seeking clarification about the exact significance of Mr Annan's words.

Polish Foreign Ministry spokesman Boguslaw Majewski said the "decisions which at that time were made by the international community in Iraq, did have legal basis".

And Bulgarian spokeswoman Guergana Grantcharova cited previous Security Council resolutions which, she said, supported the case for war.

Mr Annan told the BBC World Service there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

He also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3664234.stm

You know I would have been really surprised if they had said otherwise

[Fluffybunny]

So when does the UN get overhauled so that it can actually do something other than pass resolutions? I mean when it comes to resolutions, there is no one better...but maybe the ability to intervene in serious situations like the sudan would be kind of nifty too...

Edited September 18, 2004 by Fluffybunny

[+joc]

QUOTE(wunarmdscissor @ Sep 17 2004, 05:17 PM)

he doesnt have anything anymore.

He only had like £50 000 on him when he was cuaght and i bet either his money will be in the possesion of the USA right now or itll all have simply dissapeared thorugh various different channels.

Yeah, I think I heard that some trucks carrying his money (20 billion or million or something) were intercepted during/before the war.

Must not have been the same trucks that were carrying the WMDs?

[+joc]

So when does the UN get overhauled so that it can actually do something other than pass resolutions?

Overhauled?! How about...disbanned?

[Fluffybunny]

Overhauled?!  How about...disbanned?

270994[/snapback]

I think that there will always be a need for a UN type of organization. The concept is good, unfortunately as in many cases of politics, the application was flawed and corrupted.

[+joc]

I think that there will always be a need for a UN type of organization. The concept is good, unfortunately as in many cases of politics, the application was flawed and corrupted.

Perhaps you can enlighten me because I believe the concept is universally flawed.

A. It is called The United Nations. Hardly are we united about much of anything.

B. Thug nations and rogue regimes have seats at the table. I say there shoud be no countries allowed at the table who routinely excersice human rights violations.

C. They are a stumbling block to their propose purpose...namely being Uniting the Nations of the World.

I think it is more than the application that is flawed here. I think it is the institution itself.

[wunarmdscissor]

well joc lets not forget that during the formation of the UN there have been NO world wars, i mean before hand there was massive colonial and world wars at least once a decade.

Crimean war, Bore War , World war 1, world war 2. need i go on.

The UN has presided over the most peaceful half centuryt the world has ever seen.

To just simply say the UN is a waste of time is rash at best.

It DOES need changing that there is no doubt.

The VETO should be scrapped for one.

[Kismit]

Perhaps you can enlighten me because I believe the concept is universally flawed.

A. It is called The United Nations. Hardly are we united about much of anything.

B. Thug nations and rogue regimes have seats at the table. I say there shoud be no countries allowed at the table who routinely excersice human rights violations.

C. They are a stumbling block to their propose purpose...namely being Uniting the Nations of the World.

I think it is more than the application that is flawed here. I think it is the institution itself.

I have to agree with Fluffy there is a need for a U.N. styled organisation .

In relation to statement A. Joc , it is true that we are hardly a united nations when members like Mr Bush , claim themselves to be above the U.N. and make loud statements about the U.N's ineffectivness . You can hardly gain respect for an organisation by putting it down . The U.N. needs to be respected to be effective .

In relation to statement B. I agree totally that some form of U.N. based punishment

needs to be in place when people violate human rights and this does not need to be routinely either ,any-one who violates basic human rights (even once) from a postion of power should be punished , any-one even the leader of the U.S. should be accountable , it is a pity George dosen't see it this way .

The institution is neccisary , as a representation of all nations a place to air grievances and to make leaders accountable for the treatment of there countries and it's citizens . Unfortunately mistakes will be made but the only real tragedy would be if we didn't learn from them .

[Stellar]

have to agree with Fluffy there is a need for a U.N. styled organisation .

In relation to statement A. Joc , it is true that we are hardly a united nations when members like Mr Bush , claim themselves to be above the U.N. and make loud statements about the U.N's ineffectivness . You can hardly gain respect for an organisation by putting it down . The U.N. needs to be respected to be effective .

You do know that Bush and all this Iraq stuff wouldnt have happened if the UN wasnt just a big bluff, right?

[+joc]

In relation to statement A. Joc , it is true that we are hardly a united nations when members like Mr Bush , claim themselves to be above the U.N. and make loud statements about the U.N's ineffectivness . You can hardly gain respect for an organisation by putting it down . The U.N. needs to be respected to be effective .

Now Kismit.....you are quite intelligent and I respect your opinions, but in all truthfullness you have to admit that the UN barks and never, ever bites. Resolutions are pointless and therefore needless if they don't have any teeth.

And with all due respect ,The United States of America IS above the UN. We don't, won't, never will take our marching orders from the likes of an organization that sees no problem with putting Libya in charge of human rights. The Oil for Food Program Scam was not being perpetrated by the USA, rather by France, Germany, Russia and most likely a host of other countries. The fact of the matter is that the UN is a joke. It failed to come together and act when it really mattered and therefore showed itself to be impotent and ineffective. That Bush bites as well as barks is not a bad thing. It is a necessary thing in this age we live.

Kismit....you have it completely backwards: The UN needs to be Effective in order to be Respected!

well joc lets not forget that during the formation of the UN there have been NO world wars, i mean before hand there was massive colonial and world wars at least once a decade.

Crimean war, Bore War , World war 1, world war 2. need i go on.

The UN has presided over the most peaceful half centuryt the world has ever seen.

Is the reason we haven't had anymore WWs because of the UN?

Isn't it more likely to be the case that it came to be understood that WW certaintly meant nuclear destruction? It was the atomic age that rendered WWs useless. The New World Order began when we blasted Japan twice. That ended the last WW and effectively ended all other WWs after it. Don't you remember Wun that there use to be Two SuperPowers? What kept the US and the USSR from the brink of nuclear extinction was Detante. Thanks for the laugh though..I needed it!

Edited September 20, 2004 by joc

[Stellar]

Nah, I dont think the UN is what stopped any further WWs... I think it was the new weapons... particularly nukes.

[Talon]

Although in recent times it has been unwilling to take actions do to costs, pacifist publics and the increasing respect for life which means soldiers are no longer as expendable, it is important. The UN acts as a debating chamber for all nations, its existence does provide an deterrent to war for some countries and communication between all member nations, which would be impossible if no such organisation existed.

Due to modern technology and economy our world is a interglobal one. The actions of one state affects all others. There is no isolation anymore. An organisation that brings all together is needed.

Fluffy is right. It need rehashed, but not dismantled.

[Stellar]

I dont care if its dismantled, as long as a new one takes its place. Its not gonna be as hard of a job in the future though, considering the world is already moving towards a one world gov. Its not there yet... but its on its way. Either we'll destroy ourselves, or we'll keep joining together ala EU. I propose we all join Canada.

[Velikovsky]

How about in the new organization or in restructuring the UN countries have to meet certain requirements and guidelines. On things like human rights, the treatment of women, that kind of thing.

The charter nations would then sign treaties and agreements offering incentives for other countries to meet the standard. While having certain trade benefits to all countries that are already members.

Then to back up the UN with force, say a standing military of at least 500,000 working directly for the UN. Enough to be reckoned with but not enough to be a world threat.

Any member countries are required to have recruiting stations for the UN military. Plus you either offer equipment or the money for buying equipment. But every member offers exactly the same amount. No one country will bear the burden anymore.

Plus all countries who wish to be members have to agree to abide by the rulings of the UN. No country can go off on its own without losing its membership.

Beginning along those guidelines would set the stage of a UN that actually has unifying effects among members.

Instead of a large amount of nations arguing and disagreeing over issues, a smaller amount setting out to fix things.

[Stellar]

I agree. However, I think for something like that to have a good start, the major powers of the world would have to have more or less similar stances on major issues such as human rights. Saying "Ok! All the countries have to treat humans [...] Or else!" would be good... but when you have to make an exception cuz one of the major powers in the world doesnt agree to that and the UN doesnt want to risk a huge war with them... Kind of like human rights and China. Im not sure how they are with it now, but I heared that (at least in the past) they didnt sign, and they didnt have to treat humans the way the UN told other countries to. The UN should be an organisation that FORCES countries to act a certain (good) way.

[Velikovsky]

Exactly, China wouldn't be a member. Not unless they changed how they treat people. Until they did the members wouldn't give them a single fair treaty or trade fairly with them. Not until they changed to meet the requirements of the charter.

[Celumnaz]

Sounds exactly like what they tried to do with Iraq. Got undermined by it's own members.

[Stellar]

Exactly, China wouldn't be a member. Not unless they changed how they treat people. Until they did the members wouldn't give them a single fair treaty or trade fairly with them. Not until they changed to meet the requirements of the charter.

273552[/snapback]

Yes, but for a UN to mean anything, it has to force countries to participate in it. The ideal UN couldnt just be an organisation where you could quit if you want to do things differently. If you dont do it the way the UN says it, you're punished, severely. The embargo idea on China might mean something to them... but the UN would have to be damn sure they'd be ready to take on China if China decides to invade a country for resources it needs, like Japan did to the US in WW2. China, while it may not go over seas, it might eventually attempt to take asia for resources. The ideal UN would have to be formed *with* the complete support of the *world* in the event that another huge war would occure against a country as threatening as China. Thats not that easy to come by.

[Kismit]

And with all due respect ,The United States of America IS above the UN. We don't, won't, never will take our marching orders from the likes of an organization that sees no problem with putting Libya in charge of human rights.

I can only ask why any other country shouldn't be allowed to choose wether or not they are above the U.N. if they don't agree with a policy, of course this would cause anarchy.

In my brief experience of life , I have discovered that not everyone agrees on things or even believes in the same set of ideals . It works best when we are flexible and show respect , this does not mean bleeding heart liberal or big push over softie . There is a need for a U.N. styled organisation if a government does not agree with it then by all means they should do there best to right something they consider wrong , but they should ( especially if they see them selves as special) lead by example . And make the U.N. better rather than run it down and act as though it's decisions are frivolous.

Not to mention I don't believe it is politically clever to seperate your self from an organisation like the U.N.. Give it a different name and a different set of rules it will still be essentially the same thing run by humans who will make mistakes , and do some things we won't agree with . And George Bush would still treat it with contempt if it wasn't working in his favor .

Edited September 20, 2004 by Kismit

[+joc]

I don't believe it is politically clever to seperate your self from an organisation like the U.N.. .

What does 'politcal cleverness' have to do with anything? That is what John Kerry believes in: being politically clever. Bush has a job to do and an agenda to defeat terrorism. He has a plan and is enacting it. He isn't wishy-washy, he doesn't say one thing today and do something else tomorrow. That is what leaders do. This President will continue to wage the war on terror no matter what the detracters say...and we will be successful.

Give it a different name and a different set of rules it will still be essentially the same thing run by humans who will make mistakes , and do some things we won't agree with

Which is exactly why I think it should be disbanned. It isn't an organization that anyone can take seriously anymore.

[Kismit]

Which is exactly why I think it should be disbanned. It isn't an organization that anyone can take seriously anymore.

but it's an organisation that is needed , and should be taken seriously .

I guess we have to agree to disagree Joc , there is little point going over the same points again and again . We are better off working toward something better than staying stagnant on one issue .