Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Several days ago it has been a subject in this forum whether the war on Iraq was covered by UN resolutions or not.

In an interview with the BBC Kofi Annan now stated that the war on Iraq was illegal and a violation of the UN charta.

More informations here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.annan.ap/index.html

Since Kofi Annan is the UN Secretary-General he should know what he is talking about. Also, he got his job thanks to the massive support of the U.S. and is not suspected to harbour any resentment toward the U.S.

I hope that those who claim that this war has been covered by UN resolutions will shut up finally.

Or do you think there is a more competent person to judge whether this war was illegal or not? Maybe the Pope?

Again: The U.S. did not bring the matter before the UN security council because they knew perfectly well they would be overruled.

And a nation who starts an illegal war can not be regarded as trustworthy.

if you can ignore Colon Powell telling the UN that if you vote for this resolution, you are voting for war if Iraq doesn't comply, and if you can ignore everyone telling Saddam and the UN that this is a last chance to prevent war (since years of ignored resolutions haven't worked), and if you can interpret severe consequences to mean that they UN will pass yet another resolution for Iraq to ignore, then you might have a point!-LOL

Here's a quote from Bush about what Anan said, "But the president pointedly noted the unanimous passage in November 2002 of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which warned Saddam he faced "serious consequences" if he were found to be seeking weapons of mass destruction.

"The United Nations looked at the same intelligence I looked at. 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. I believe when bodies say something, they better mean it," he said.

The UN is impotent. They can't seem to accomplish anything without the help (money and manpower) of the US, and that puts us in a very bad position. If we don't do it, it simply won't get done. If we do it, we can then be later criticized for doing it!

Just because the UN backed out on enforcing it's resolution, and just because Kofi Anan and the UN are impotent, doesn't mean the war was illegal. Go back and read resolution 1441 again. It is clear that Kofi is not representing the facts as they are. This is purely a political statement on his part.

Rodney

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Take particular note of the cristal clear "last chance" part of the resolution and the fact that the resolution didn't bar any nation from taking action unilaterally to protect itself.--(not that the US did, considering the 40 country coalition.) Also note this is a UN press release, not a US/conservative/republican/pro-bush press release. So if you think it is politically biased, the bias is on the UN.

Then try to make the case that Kofi Annan knows what he is talking about when he says this was an illegal war.

Rodney

... has the U.S. abandoned its initially intention to obtain a new resolution of the UN security council that would have explicitely permitted the war on Iraq?

Firstly: The U.S. new that "dire consequences" is diplomatic language and does not mean war.

Secondly: As soon as the U.S. smelled that they would not get the desired new resolution that would allow the war (explicetly) they abandoned their intention.

Thirdly: Did the UN resolution back in 1991 speak of "dire consequences" when Iraq would not leave Kuwait or read it war?

But, to discuss this matter is an idle thing...

You have got your way, you are in Iraq now and you will be there for a looooooooooooooooooong time.

There is a saying: Beware of your wishes because they could become true.... *LOL*

has the U.S. abandoned its initially intention to obtain a new resolution of the UN security council that would have explicitely permitted the war on Iraq?

Probably because the US understood that the French, Russians, and the Germans would never have become part of the coalition because they were both trading with Iraq (violating UN sanctions against Iraq from earlier UN resolutions), and they had too many dollars at stake. Their monetary interest prevented them from doing the right thing. Isn't it interesting that the main countries that were against this war (France, Russia, Germany) all had oil contracts with Iraq, and they would loose monitarily by the war, while all the countries that supported it didn't have contracts? Isn't it interesting that the US knew this war would cost it lots of $$$$$, but they didn't care about the monitary cost to them, and instead did what they thought was right?

Firstly: The U.S. new that "dire consequences" is diplomatic language and does not mean war

I didn't know that! And neither did the UN or Colon Powell! If the UN knew that, why did their own press release say that it was a LAST CHANCE? If Colon Powell knew that, why did he go around to the UN members and tell them that voting for this resolution is voting for war, if Iraq doesn't comply? Does last chance mean yet another resolution? To me, last means last. It doesn't mean second to last, third to last, never, etc.

If there had been yet another UN resolution written, that Iraq violated, would that make you change your position about the war? I doubt it. Especially since all the other resolutions being violated weren't enough for you either. If twelve violations weren't enough, why would thirteen be enough? or 20, or a hundred?

While I agree that to discuss this is an idle thing, misrepresenting the facts is not. And Kofi Annan, now saying that this is an illegal war, is purely political. Doesn't he remember the UN's own press release saying that this is Iraq's last chance? Doesn't he remember the unanimous decision of the UN to support 1441? I remember!

Rodney

The U.S. and allies hoped that the costs of war would at least be covered by the oil in Iraq.

Also, big contracts for U.S. companies lured because after the war the Iraq needed to be rebuilt.

But all of this turned out as a major miscalculation: Blown-up pipelines and intimidated companies whose employees get kidnapped and murdered.

And one thing I promise to you: Your army will stay long enough in Iraq to help the last sceptic to learn the truth:

That France, Russia and Germany were right.

This war was a war at the wrong place, wrong time, against the wrong nation for phony reasons.

That France, Russia and Germany were right.

This war was a war at the wrong place, wrong time, against the wrong nation for phony reasons.

French, Russian, and German intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs. What were they right about? About not invading Iraq after they all said that Iraq had them? About signing 1441? Or about not enforcing the resolution they said they supported?

In my book, they were all wrong, all the time. They were wrong about Iraq having WMDs. They were wrong to sign 1441 if they never intended to enforce it. And they were wrong to not join the coalition after voting for 1441.

I can't blame them for being wrong about WMDs, as the entire world was wrong about this, but I can blame them for not following through on their convictions (1441). Many people believe that it was their reassurance to Saddam that they would not invade Iraq that caused Saddam to defy the world, and this reassurance caused the 1441 noncompliance and the war in the first place.

Saying that Iraq has WMDs, then supporting 1441, then not enforcing 1441, and then, much later, saying they were right not to envade because they were wrong about WMDS and 1441 doesn't make them right at all!

Rodney