BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal

Subject: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 10:44 PM

From today's Boston Globe:

"The U.N. Charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval as an explicit enforcement action, such as during the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.

But in 2003, in the build-up to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became apparent it would not pass.

At the time, Annan had underlined the lack of legitimacy for a war without U.N. approval, saying: ''If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the Charter.''

On Wednesday, after being asked three times whether the lack of council approval for the war meant it was illegal, he said: ''From our point of view and the [UN ] Charter point of view it was illegal.''

He also said that the wave of violence engulfing Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.

There could not be ''credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now,'' he told the BBC."

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 10:56 PM

Well, yes, obviously it was illegal. Just like Hitler's attack on Poland or Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia or Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait.

The last thing an aggressor nation is ever really concerned about is legality...although they will try hard to create a facade of legality, of course, because their public must be persuaded that it's "a just war". Ha, ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 11:43 PM

Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 01:16 AM

DUI is a crime. Someone gets killed and DUI is still a crime and someone else gets killed and DUI is . . . .

Why do people rob banks? Right. That's where the money is.

So, the war was--and presumably is--illegal. And the next move is?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:35 AM

The definitive ruling courtesy of the guy who let Rwandan genocide go unabated and now lets Darfur genocide continue. Another paper pushing incompetent with all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:39 AM

Kofi Annan also said that Zambia would win the Cresta Run but what does he know? But seriously, he presided over that gutless talking shop, The United Nations that passed resolutions concerning Iraq, procrastinated then proceded to implement the square root of f.a. less ten so what does one expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:45 AM

Not like George Bush, who is so obviously eminently competent to f. our troops in Iraq and make every mistake imaginable.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:51 AM

and he says that there is no genocide going on in Sudan- because thenhe would HAVE to take action. Kofi Annan has always objected to any action on any problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:53 AM

On the other hand, if the International court says it is illegal, why then it must be... You know, the court that could convict Kerry of those admitted violations of the Geneva Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:57 AM

Kofi Annan is a brave man. Not gaining a consensus on an issue at the UN is not a reason to act outside its charters. Invading a country without UN consent, and then criticising the UN, is undermining and sabotaging the organisation that was set up to prevent just those invasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:00 AM

The UN was set up to prevent situations like Iraq under Saddam from happening- but Saddam choose to violate the cease fire and sanctions the UN had imposed. THEN, the UN refused to enforce it's own resolutions. How is that for sabatoge?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: sledge
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:16 AM

If you want sabotage just look at the shameless financial manipulation of the UN by the US government over the years as mentioned previoulsy on the 1000 gone thread.

Here is the relevent part of that post in full.

-----------------------------------------------------
I just think that the whole response by the Bush administration was excessive, so he ignored a few UN resolutions, thats not something that new in the history of the UN, the US was as one point in serious debt to the UN by failing to pay up its financial obligations to the tune of $365 million in the early 90's, this of course was period when Washington sort of liked the UN thanks to their support following the invasion of Kuwait, they only did so "when they saw fit" but not enough to counter their eventual debt of around $1.5 billion. Obligations to the UN should be a 2 way street then, resolutions or not I think.

The size of this debt has been part of US goverment policy for quite a while, when the US could command a majority in the UN which they did for some time, only those unfriendly to the US were pressured for payment as was the case with the Soviet union. However as their influence waned they sought to regain it by refusing to pay, putting pressure on the UN that way. Its a big stick to carry. While there are other countries who are in arrears none are ever as in debt as the US, who, could more easily settle her debt.
-----------------------------------------------------------

If you are going to hold fast to UN resolutione etc. when they serve your needs and prefernces you should accept their rebukes as well.



Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:19 PM

Well done, Little Hawk, of all the many illegal wars of the last century you just pick three and the three names to write down by pure chance happen to be Hitler, Mussolini and Saddam Hussein. However, I would have repeated the name Bush in that line to make the association a bit more forceful.

Since this is the most recent thread about Iraq and I don't want to start a new one, here's an interesting and worrying comment from the Guardian:
Far graver than Vietnam
(and I am pondering whether the adjective 'grave' was chosen on purpose...)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:12 PM

One nice thing about haveing the biggest stick is that international law can't touch ya'...

Why did Bush not sign onto the World Court?

(Oh yeah, he didn't want the United States hands tied in defending itself against 3rd rate militaries...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:17 PM

And he wanted to keep people like Kerry out of jail, for admitted war crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:28 PM

beardedbruce, you take the cake.

****************************************8

Seymour Hersh wrote: "A successful strategy has always counted on 'dividing your enemies and uniting your friends'. Bush has united our enemies and divided our friends."

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:34 PM

as posted in another thread, Kerry said that he had done things that were against the Geneva convention. Thus, the World Court could prosecute him. How does making a true statment take the cake?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:34 PM

Oh, well, Wolfgang, I may not have actually PUT Bush in that line, but you know he really was in it by implication. :-)

Here are some more examples of wars launched by aggressor nations:

Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran (with the indirect assistance and encouragement of the USA).

The USA's gradual, step-by-step intervention in Vietnam which took place over nearly 2 decades.

China's border attack on Vietnam not too long after the USA was out of the picture there.

The USA's gobbling up of most of the northern areas of Mexico.

The USA's gobbling up of the overseas empire of Spain in 1898.

The USA's unsuccessful attempt to invade and "liberate" Canada in 1812-1814.

Russia's attack on Finland in 1939.

Russia's occupation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania not long after that.

Japan's attacks on: China, the Dutch East Indies, the Phillipines, Hong Kong, Malaya, and so on in the 30's and early 40's.

Israel's assault on its Arab neighbours in 1967.

Egypt and Syria's assault on Israel in 1973.

Israel's incursions into Lebanon in the 80's.

Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in the 80's.

And so on, and so on...

The point I am making, Wolfgang, is that virtually every major power, and many minor powers have launched illegal wars of aggression whenever:

1. they thought they could gain something by it.

2. they thought they could get away with it.

3. they thought they could win.

Bush and Blair's war in Iraq is just the latest example of major powers doing it...for typically spurious reasons. They had the gall to pretend they were defending themselves from a genuine threat!

Hitler had that sort of gall too. He had the German people convinced at the time that the war on Poland was a defence of German people and German national security. It's really quite amazing what people will believe when Big Brother tells them so, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:36 PM

AS I understand it, what Kerry actually said was that he was member of a military force that carried out war crimes - the US Army in Vietnam. Is that even controversial? Are there really people who dispute that?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:45 PM

Yeah! It's so bizaree that anyone would even try to deny that the US military committed war crimes in Vietnam.

Kerry is supposed to be "unpatriotic", is he? For telling the truth? Well, if it is unpatriotic to tell the truth then one had best question just what one is being patriotic TO.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:53 PM

No, McGrath, he stated that HE had commited acts in violation...

And it is not that he is unpatriotic, but that the reason to NOT be under the World court is to keep him, and those like him, out of kangaroo courts overseas. Your comments. LH, are not relevent to the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:10 PM

So, BB, who are you going to vote for?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:39 PM

BB, I'd like to see your source for that admission by Kerry. Also, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about when you say "World Court". To what "World Court" are you referring, which has the power to try soldiers for committing atrocities, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide?

McGrath, Kerry served in the Navy, not in the Army, as I recall.

The criticism about Kofi Annan sitting on his hands over Rwanda and Sudan are dead on, IMO. I detest the man AND I will NEVER forgive Clinton for doing the same because it was the most politically expedient thing for him to do for his own political fortunes. Both men bear the primary responsibility for and have the blood on their hands of the Rwandan genocide.

But then, if any of you watched the anniversary specials on Rwanda, or read Samantha Power's book, you wouldn't be voting for the Democrats, either. Rwanda was on Clinton's watch. Sudan started on Bush's watch, but may end up on Kerry's.

However, despicable as I think Kofi Annan is, he is dead to rights in this instance. The Iraq war was a violation of the UN charter.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:54 PM

Hmmm. Well, I think they're relevant, BB. :-) Who gets to define whether or not a court is a "kangaroo court"? It appears to me that everyone makes their own definition up about that one on the spot, according to whether the court in question sees things the way they do or not.

In my opinion, for instance, the Allied courts at Nuremberg were in some respects a kangaroo court...in that they tried only war criminals from Germany and Japan and ignored other war criminals of the time who were from the USA, the UK, and Russia, for example. And in that they tried some military officers who were really not war criminals, but were simply soldiers...because it was deemed politically expedient at the time. On the other hand...some of the people they tried did deserve to be accused of war crimes. It was a mixed picture. Call it a half-kangaroo court then. :-)

The World Court tried the USA in the 1980's for illegally attacking Nicaragua in a variety of ways and causing many civilian deaths there. The USA was found guilty by the World Court...and ignored the ruling...as powerful aggressors always ignore such rulings.

That was not the ruling of a kangaroo court, it was the ruling of an international body which could plainly see what the USA will not publicly admit to.

The international body called the United Nations was clearly not willing to endorse the recent war on Iraq (Operation Iraqi F*ckup), despite the Bush administration's heavy lobbying. Thus, the USA and Britain ignored the further wishes of that international body on the matter and launched their illegal war.

That's just what Al Capone or Mussolini would have done too. "Look, Jake, ya got the guns? Ya got the soldiers? Who the f*ck cares what the law says about it? Take them suckers out! The law ain't got the muscle to tell us what we can do in this town."

That's what it amounted to. Pride, hubris, contempt, and ruthlessness...combined with a messianic belief in the righteousness of one's chosen cause.

The international community knows perfectly well that the USA has no respect for it or for international law...and they return the sentiment at this point. The USA is presently the World's number 1 rogue nation, and pretty well everyone knows it except the American public...and probably the Israeli public. They live in a reality bubble all its own, where goodness flows automatically like a river from their every thought and action. That river drowns other nations and destroys other people's dreams.

Kofi Annan is simply saying what is so plainly obvious that there's almost no way he can't say it. The USA defied most of the World and launched an unjustified, illegal war for its own strategic gains. Period.

They will soon be looking for a new Saddam, because the USA always needs a new Saddam...in order to justify the next imperial adventure. The old Saddam (and the old Bin Laden) may still prove marginally useful until the 2004 election is over. After that, he's "history", as they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 05:53 PM

Let's get some TRUTH on the table, right now. Plain truth. There are some powerful nations in this world---the U.S.of A.being the most glaring example---who, while making their contempt for the United Nations Organisation very obvious, will attempt to use whatever power and influence they have to bend the U.N.to their will. The U.S. in particular has become, through constant emphasis on expansion of their military machine, [and their W.M.D.s]confident that they can ultimately ignore the product of international discussion under the U.N.charter. This is exactly what happened in the approach to the Iraq "problem". There was NO legitimacy to the attack on Iraq. Every U.N. decision, every suggestion of further investigation of the "WMD" situation was ignored and circumvented, amid such a web of lies and contempt for the lives of innocents as has never been seen since 1939.
The LAST people on Earth to be justified in criticising the UN are those in an American administration. As a "leading" member of the organisation, they are outstanding among those who have been unpaying passengers. Instead of being one of the leaders in the fight for justice all around the world, they have consistently "played the field" to their own advantage, and when things haven't gone their way have carped and criicised , and finally did what the hell they liked. And to Britain's shame, Tony "Bushie-tail" Blair went creeping along behind like a lapdog in Iraq. All the Blair flannel and the hardly-coherent gabbling of Bush that is [still!] being produced can disguise the fact that this turn-of the -century fool's adventure has brought the World to the threshold---possibly over it --of a human catastrophe which could dwarf even the horrors of WW2 or Vietnam. And I am no admirer of Kofi Annan either; he's too damn' diplomatic. It's long past time for someone to say "Pay up---or shut up and know that nearly all the world is against you." That, in my opinion, is what the wild American "right" has done for the people of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:05 PM

Exactly, Boab. Annan should speak far more strongly on the matter than he has so far dared to.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: pdq
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:17 PM

He can't 'cause he's too busy trying to hide the 3 Billion dollars he skimmed in the "Oil for Food" program.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:24 PM

McGrath:

As I posted before:

Full text of the quote I heard:

"MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 07:03 PM

beardedbruce, my understanding of the way the World Court works is that people on the level of John Kerry, when he was serving in Vietnam, wouldn't be the ones getting prosecuted. It would be people who were much higher up the chain of command. And yes, I would support the World Court even if it decided to go after Kerry after taking care of all of the people in the chain of command above him. Of course, before they went after Kerry, they would have already successfully prosecuted most of the people in the Bush administration, as well as many people from previous administrations.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 04:16 AM

Coffee Latte says its happened.

lets work out what the hell to do now for the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 08:37 AM

Thanks beardedbruce, for giving us the quote to which you were referring.

However, I'm more interested in finding out what the source of it is. It sounds somewhat like his now famous Congressional testimony back in the day, but not like it. Is that where you got the quote from?

Also, I'm guessing you are referring to the International Court of Justice at the Hague, which is often called the "World Court". That is the main judicial arm of the UN, and involves disputes between nations, but only when the parties agree to be bound by the decision. That clearly never would have happened with the US, who has consistently refused to be held to the same standard as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, for example.

It is grossly inaccurate to depict the soldiers and grunts as the ones the World Court goes after. The UN has established tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda to prosecute leaders (again note: NOT individual soldiers) responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Special Courts, believed to be cheaper and more efficient than UN tribunals, are jointly administered by the UN and the domestic government. They are also considered by many to be open to political manipulation.

The International Criminal Court is separate from the World Court, and was just established in July 2002, can actually go after the world's leaders, which many felt would be a much more effective way to pursue prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was established to go one step further, promising to end the impunity long enjoyed by world leaders to carry out illegal actions live the US' unilateral invasion of Iraq in violation of the UN charter (and possibly the US laws and treaties it has signed).

Nowhere has the failure of the World Court been more strongly felt, than in the case of Pinochet.

Of course, the US has refused to sign on to the International Criminal Court, as it would likely have it's top leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell) in the docket over Iraq, Guantanamo, etc etc

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 02:03 PM

I think it may have been from a Dick Cavett interview, GUEST.

What I love is that bb is so bent on smearing Kerry that he makes no valid point. What is he saying? That Bush will not recognize the world court so that it will be OK for American soldiers to continue to ignore the Geneva Conventions? That because Kerry once was ordered to do something illegal, now he too has to support OTHER troops doing illegal things? That the world court will decide to make an example of Kerry? That the US should be above the law?

Just what does bb mean by claiming that Bush is actually just trying to protect Kerry?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: DougR
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 04:12 PM

Little Hawk: "US Military committed war crimes in Vietnam." You're painting with a pretty wide brush there, aren't you L.H.? You're smearing the eitire US military force when you make a statement like that aren't you? Is that what you intended?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 05:30 PM

I hope Robomatic & Co find time to read that Guardian article for which Wolfgang gave the link. Those who view the Iraq adventure as a wonderful triumph will dismiss it as just retired US generals spouting forth from their armchairs, but it's hard to imagine any military mind seeing it any other way.

Significant parts of Iraq are now no-go areas for US troops, and this will provide invaluable breathing space for insurgents to regroup and consolidate. Kofi Annan is stating the patently obvious when he says fair elections would be impossible in the present climate. All evidence on the ground is that the insurgency is growing, so what grounds are there to hope stability will have been achieved by January?

Iraq has been reduced to exactly the ungovernable mess that was so widely predicted before the invasion. Syria, Turkey and Iran must be looking on with barely disguised glee. And many potentially troublesome regimes around the world will have noted with interest America's abject failure to get a grip in Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which had any infrastructure to speak of, and little in the way of advanced weapons systems.

The criticism directed at Kofi Annan re Darfur, Rwanda etc could more fairly be aimed at those constituent members of the UN, most notably America, that have done their best to undermine that organisation, and indeed the whole concept of consensus in international affairs. Oh, and at France, which ahs some direct culpability. Annan's remarks have brought yelps from Washington and London (I know Canberra chipped in too) mainly because they thought he was their man. The US went to some lengths to ensure that he served another term. No wonder they're smarting, but it's a dead cert they won't want to prolong the squabble.

Annan was asked point-blank two or three times whether the invasion was legal, and in the end he gave an honest answer. Anyone with an ounce of decency, who heard Negroponte urging support for 1441 with assurances that it did not give authority for a war, would have done the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 06:29 PM

LH: In your list of 'incursions' you include Israel on its 'Arab neighbours' in 1967 which I find incredible. Leaving out the bloviation of the Arab neighbors that they would push Israel into the sea, the mobilization of the Arab neigbors in cooperation with each other (Egypt then being called UAR, Syria, and Jordan) we have the presence of UN Mediation forces which were PULLED OUT at the last minute by U Thant. And, oh yes, the mining of territorial waters, in itself an act of war (by Egypt).

So you have inadvertently provided another example of UN making worse an existing situation by withdrawel (at the behest of Arab forces).

GUEST is correct to a point in blaming Clinton for US inaction in Rwanda, but it should be remembered that the US had had its nose badly bloodied (literally and figuratively) in Somalia late the preceding year. Clinton and by extension most Americans may have felt with some justice that there had to be more at stake or more support before US would commit more troops. In retrospect Clinton has said he should have done more and to his credit he went to Rwanda and apologized.

A very interesting movie that deals on the kinds of problems we are going in to in international peacekeeping is: "No Man's Land" which takes place in the recent Bosnian conflict, which the US did get involved with via the relatively efficient and non-corrupt NATO as opposed to UN auspices.

The UN MUST be supported over the long turn, because although horribly inefficient and riddled with idiocy and corruption, over time it will lead to better things. But expecting Kofi Annan and the present councils to achieve much is like expecting Mayor Curley to vote only once during a Boston election.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 10:34 PM

I didn't think you'd agree with me on that one, robomatic, because you are very pro-Israeli, and will always consider an issue only from their point of view (in my opinion). I see the 1967 war as a very well planned first strike by Israel. The 1973 war was a very well-planned first strike by Egypt and Syria. In either case, the attackers knew exactly what they were doing. They didn't have war forced on them...they sought war willingly and eagerly. In either case they could both have pointed to any number of earlier provocations by the opposing side...but the war, as a real full-scale war, was launched when they attacked with the full forces at their disposal, not when waters were mined or forces mobilized.

The Germans and Poles were also both mobilized in 1939 prior to the outbreak of hostilities. They had both already accused one another of provocative and warlike acts. In that case, the Polish accusations were largely correct, the German ones were entirely false and trumped-up, but the German public believed them (as is generally the case with any public in such a situation). Germany launched the war, willingly and eagerly. Israel launched the 1967 war...with great skill, willingly and eagerly. They are masters of the modern blitzkrieg once pioneered by Germany...probably its greatest masters in the post World War II era.

The difference between our viewpoints is essentially this. You will call a spade a spade only when it is not an Israeli wielding it. I will call a spade a spade regardless of who wields it. I believe I am more even-handed on the matter than you are willing to be.

I don't see it as a situation where there are guys in white hats (Israelis) on one side and guys in black hats (Muslims) on the other. I see it in shades of gray. Both sides have their fanatics and their greed for power and dominance. Both sides have their good people, their peacemakers, and their legitimate concerns for territory and security.

I've done some interesting reading (by a Jewish author) on the 1967 war recently. Although it was the impression of the Israeli public in 1967 that Israel was the "little guy", militarily speaking, it was the impression of the Israeli general staff that it was their Arab foes who were quite weak and vulnerable and that they could score a quick and decisive victory by attacking in force. They were entirely correct in that assumption. An aggressor is usually someone who has already determined how he can launch a crushing attack on his weaker opponent, and Israel was the aggressor in charge of that particular war. Egypt and Syria were the aggressors in charge of the one that followed in '73...at the beginnning. Israel managed to turn it around, with difficulty.

I call a spade a spade, I don't care who is wielding it. I am not tied to a tribal identity. I think of myself as human, period...not Canadian, not white, not Christian, not male, not anything that leaves out much of the rest of humanity...but human. There is no group out there that is guaranteed to be always right just because of who they are.

I think your tendency toward automatic support of Israel under all circumstances is naive. It's tribal thinking. Humanity cannot afford much more tribal thinking at this point in history.

And that's why it was said by a wise man: "Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel (or just a naive person) clings."

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 09:21 AM

Peter, I included the US, and Clinton in particular, for their role in the Rwandan genocide, and Bush and the US in the Sudan genocide, right along with Annan and the UN.

But don't you see how hypocritical Annan and the UN have been on these issues, because of them being in the US' back pocket? Including on Iraq? Annan remained largely silent, and only slightly critical of Bush during the invasion, too.

The UN has gone downhill under Annan, and is in desperate need of new leadership that reflects true independence of the whims of the US and other Security Council heavyweights.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 12:04 PM

The U.N. needs to be located somewhere else than on the soil of the World's greatest superpower. I would suggest a more neutral and peaceful location such as: Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, Holland, Singapore, Norway, Denmark...

Doing simply that would render the U.N. a far better and fairer representative of the World community of nations than it is now. (And it would also probably result in the USA almost completely ignoring the very existence of the U.N.!)

The USA is under the impression that the U.N. exists for one reason only: to be its rubber stamp and its errand boy overseas. That is not the purpose of the U.N. The U.N. should be an international force to restrain aggressive superpowers, not to act as their proxy.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 12:16 PM

OF course the war was illegal.    All wars are illegal. And they are immoral and irresponsible, no matter how may Neanderthal club-bangers jump up and down asserting the necessity of them.

Despite which, they sometimes show up and you are stuck with them once begun, until they are finished.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 12:31 PM

I thinks we can all pretty much agree My Lai happened. So, yes, the US did committ attrocities in Vietnam

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 03:11 PM

Yes, Doug, the USA did commit atrocities in Vietnam...but for me to say that is in no way to accuse every single American serviceman or officer who was there of committing atrocities. The majority of individual German soldiers did not commit atrocities in WWII either...they just fought battles against other soldiers most of the time, which is what a soldier must do when he's in a war.

So for me to say that the USA committed atrocities in Vietnam is not to condemn all Americans who were involved there, and I'm surprised you would interpret it in that light.

The Vietnamese forces also committed atrocities. Atrocities of one sort or another were pretty widespread in the Vietnam war...as they were in WWII as well. Matter of fact, the whole stupid war was an atrocity if you want to look at it in a truly moral sense.

People who are in favour of wars on other people's soil should be put right in the front line with a gun in their hands, regardless of how old and rich they are, and see how they like it seeing other people get blown apart in front of them. If this was required of all the financial and military leaders who launch wars, then I think you would soon see an end to war on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 10:10 PM

"People who are in favour of wars on other people's soil should be put right in the front line with a gun in their hands, regardless of how old and rich they are, and see how they like it…"

Yes. Including those posting to this forum. And if they're frail they could help in a field hospital.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 04 - 11:11 PM

I don't care how frail they are. If they're in favour of launching wars on (or over) other people's soil, if they're in favour of occupying a foreign country by force, put 'em right where the bullets are flying and the mortar shells are coming in.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 09:57 PM

Right on Little Hawk
Lets fight the next one on Canadian Soil, OK ?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 10:27 PM

Only the USA has ever tried to do that, and we kicked their little red white and blue asses right back across the border. :-) As a Canadian, I would have been willing to fight in that one, as long as I was doing my fighting on home ground.

I generally sympathize with people who are trying to eject a foreign invading army from their own soil. I do not sympathize with phony politicians who launch pre-emptive wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 11:23 PM

LH:
(grin) from your remarks a few messages above I take it you included Israel as an instigation in which case your 'spading' was the same kind of preparation that you accuse various nations of doing.

I remember the events leading up to the war, and they were Arab mobilization, Arab threats, and Jewish fear. You seem to want to blame Israel for winning, which is not a new attitude. An Israeli writer wrote a very apropos story about it called "Unfair to Goliath". In it he takes your attitude, which might be as tongue in cheek as his given your self-confessed role as agent provacateur above. His character is lamenting poor Goliath who was kayoed by that rotten Jewish so-and-so David. Poor Goliath's children are so said, as their mother says: "Where is our daddy? Has he killed all the Jews yet?"

I'm sure there are several books on the war, and maybe each one has something new to add, but planning and motivation are two separate subjects.

Regarding your observations on gardening implements, I think more in terms of a deck of cards.
The difference between us is that I call a spade a spade, and a heart a heart, a club a club, and a diamond a diamond.
You call a spade a spade, a heart a spade, a club a spade, and a diamond a spade. It must be interesting to play cards with you.

Of course you represent yourself as non-tribal. You are from a multi-cultural society bordering a multi-cultural society. What you are overlooking is that Israel is multi-cultural, and her neighbors are tribal.

As for US military (mis)adventures in Canada, you might appreciate a musical group called The Arrogant Worms. They do a nice Canadian version of "The War of 1812" turning the American "Battle of New Orleans" on its head.

On the other hand, the Canadian way is rather sly, what with Stan Rogers lamenting the unhappy voyage of the Antelope in his brilliant 'Barrett's Privateers' when we know full well that fortunes were made in Halifax by privateering off of American trade in both our early wars. This has cropped up on another thread so I won't belabor the point. Just remember that eventually Canada freed herself from British rule and if she'd accepted the 'help' offered her by the U.S., it all could have happened so much sooner!


Long Live Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST,Displaced Camelotian
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:27 AM

Wolfgang, thank you for the link to The Guardian. The people quoted are genuine experts rather than TV punmdits. This is a troubling report that everyone on this thread should read.

If the war was undertaken because of a genuinely perceived threat from Iraq's (presumed) WMD, it may not be illegal under the Charter, which allows nations the right to defend themselves unilaterally; one difficult legality question is whether the Charter
can be interpreted as permitting a pre-emptive defense. The fact that Hussein had defied numerous UN resolutions on WMD over a period of years relates directly to America's decision to go to war and further complicates the "legality" question, as does the fact that the American action was not even unilateral.

Kofi Annan's personal opinion is hardly sufficient to declare a war "illegal". A resolution passed by member nations would be more to the point.

The pressing issue for Americans and Britons is not the war's "legality." It is, as several posters have said, what to do next to avoid a debacle in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 08:35 AM

The problem DC, is that the UN's weapons inspectors weren't about to declare there WERE WMDs. In fact, about a week and a half before Colin Powell spoke to the UN, Hans Blix testified that NO WMDs had been found. Now, the US found the weapons inspectors' evidence mighty inconvenient, which is why they decided to go in pre-emptively, without final approval by the UN. UN weapons inspectors were still in Iraq 48 hours before the US started it's bombing campaign. The US and Britain, and their mockery of an international coalition, WERE in violation of the UN charter when they invaded pre-emptively without a UN resolution authorizing them to invade and act on behalf of the UN for WMD inspection violations.

The US and Britain, along with their coerced coalition of the willing DID violate the UN charter on invasion of sovereign nations. Period. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST,Displaced Camelotian
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 10:40 AM

Personal opinions, no matter how strongly held, do not decide what is or is not permitted by the UN Charter. In the same way, I have a strong personal opinion about the guilt or innocence of Scott Peterson, but fortunately a court of law has to make that _legal decision_, not uninformed private citizens like you or me. Only the UN membership itself, and not Kofi Annan responding to a reporter's insistent questioning, is constituted to decide whether a particular military action is or is not allowed under the Charter.

No war receives universal approval within warring modern societies. Some extreme pacifists opposed the US involvement in World War II even after Pearl Harbor; some Germans were repelled by Germany's attack on Poland. It is only natural that personal feelings should run high either way in matters of war and peace.

Perhaps you will excuse my cynicism if I suggest that any declaration by the UN, the World Court, or any other body that the war in Iraq is somehow "illegal" (and I doubt that such a finding will ever be made,
will have little or no practical result. No decision makers in any nation will alter their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan says Iraq war was illegal
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 04 - 01:32 PM

Personal opinion DC? I think not.

Here you go, argue with the actual charter, why don't you?

Chapter I, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations:

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.


Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.


Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.


Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.


Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.


Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.


Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.


Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.


Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------