Iraq War Illegal, but Trial Unlikely

[DarkHippie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030319/wl_nm/iraq_law_dc_1
The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.

one might argue that this is in self defense but:
The U.N. Charter says self-defense is only justified "if an armed attack occurs." When Israel tried to justify its 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor as an act of pre-emptive self-defense, the Security Council unanimously condemned it. . . Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.


So why is a trial unlikely?:
Laetia Husson, a researcher at the International Law Center at the Sorbonne university in Paris, said international action to declare a breach of the U.N. Charter was unlikely.
"There is little chance of condemnation by the United Nations because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said.
Washington and Baghdad do not recognize the International Criminal Court inaugurated last week and it has yet to define a crime of aggression. But it could still try Britain and other U.S. allies that recognize it on any war crimes charges.
Interesting. While the US may not be charged with war crimes, its allies may be (though doubtful).

Either way, the power of the UN has been severly diminished by our blatant disregard for International Law. as I have said in myriad previous posts: "a Preemptive war sets a dangerous precedent, one that will surely be used again throughout the world in the near future." This is coming more to light, as the UN Charter now has very little meaning. In our attempt to save the UN, we have buried it.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[FiveB247]

I agree 100% with your post hippie.

[ChrisTheCop]

So why is a trial unlikely?:


Because it IS in self defense and it IS approved by the UN security council, they just refused to back up their own words. I think the UN is just "stunting" while they decide what their new format is gonna be.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/flagusa.gif">

[CaptClown]

I stopped believing in the UN when they put some of the worst abusers of Human Rights on the UN Human Rights Council.

Sorry but I have to steal Wile E.'s argument:From Bush's address on March 17th:


Quote:
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.



Note, no mention of resolution 1441.

From Resolution 678:


Quote:
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to USE ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international pease and security in the area:


Emphasis added by me.

From Resolution 687:


Quote:
Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying the Convention,

Noting also the importance of all States adhering to the Convention and encouraging its forthcoming review conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the Convention,

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a convention on the universal prohibition of chemical weapons and of universal adherence thereto,

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968

.
.
.

Recalling the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, opened for signature in New York on 18 December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages as manifestations of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM,

.
.
.

Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto:

(b) all ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and related major parts and repair and production facilities:


There's your authorization.





Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

[FiveB247]

Because it IS in self defense and it IS approved by the UN security council, they just refused to back up their own words. I think the UN is just "stunting" while they decide what their new format is gonna be.

I want to claim self defense from an enemy that can't hit me....nice one. Will the US have Colin Ferguson representing them in trial?

The UN not backing their own words....or in other words....US enforcement on their own behalf. Nothing to do with anything the UN said. Unilateral action for national interests.

[DarkHippie]

Because it IS in self defense and it IS approved by the UN security council, they just refused to back up their own words
It's not about refusing to back up its words, this is the Charter that has been infringed. And no resolution ever called specifically for military intervention, certainly not for the overthrow and annexation of a soveriegn nation

All necessary means are to be decide by the security Council AND ONLY the security council, capt clown. By acting without the UN's approval, we are guilty of violation of the UN charter.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

This message was edited by DarkHippie on 3-22-03 @ 1:18 PM

[CaptClown]

I want to claim self defense from an enemy that can't hit me....nice one. Will the US have Colin Ferguson representing them in trial?

It might work.


The UN not backing their own words....or in other words....US enforcement on their own behalf. Nothing to do with anything the UN said. Unilateral action for national interests.

1.) It's not a unilateral action if more than one country is acting. The US, the UK, and Australia are fighting. Spain is providing medical support.

2.) The list of countries supporting the action is growing day by day.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

[FiveB247]

Mulitilateral actions in international affairs includes UN approval....not just rounding up people to help your action.

As I've said in previous posts, NATO and similar organizations are ways to gather support on a level without UN support.

[ChrisTheCop]

we are guilty of violation of the UN charter.


In that case, so is Iraq (and France et al) for trying to stop a member country from enforcing a UN resolution. You see, the charter, much like the bible, or even the NYC police manual, is a GUIDE. And for every passage you can find to support your argument, there's 1 or 2 more which contradict it. For those still on the anti war bandwagon, may I suggest that when you get back from lying in the streets (hey! how come youre not doing that right now?!), you read (or re-read) Colin Powell's address to the UN. And when youre done with that, watch a few videos of the World Trade Center towers falling down. Dont forget, you are the people who would have protested if on September 10, 2001, George Bush had killed Osama, or even ordered all commercial flights cancelled for 48 hours.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/flagusa.gif">

[CaptClown]

Mulitilateral actions in international affairs includes UN approval....not just rounding up people to help your action.

Since when do you need to have UN approval to have a multilateral action? Plus you have the Iraqi Kurds helping out and you got the Shi'a in Southern Iraq running around happy like a bunch of newly freed slaves.

As I've said in previous posts, NATO and similar organizations are ways to gather support on a level without UN support.

This is just another level to that.


Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army



This message was edited by CaptClown on 3-22-03 @ 2:19 PM

[DarkHippie]

Dont forget, you are the people who would have protested if on September 10, 2001, George Bush had killed Osama, or even ordered all commercial flights cancelled for 48 hours
You've a lot of nerve to throw out a claim like that, but go on, believe what you want if it makes you feel better about yourself.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[TheMojoPin]

Dont forget, you are the people who would have protested if on September 10, 2001, George Bush had killed Osama, or even ordered all commercial flights cancelled for 48 hours.

OK, BOSSS!!! ME GOTS IT LOCKED!!!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[ChickenHawk]

US out of the UN. UN out of the US.

<IMG SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/fathernoel/.Pictures/parodysig.gif">
SIG CURRENTLY STUNTING * NEW SIG COMING THIS SPRING

[The Jays]

From the March 6th report by UNMOVIC on Unresolved Issues in regard to Iraq....
Iraq's policy on WMD after the Gulf War

On 3 April 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 687 (1991), which established the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), and required Iraq to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision" its weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles over 150 km range, and all associated facilities, equipment and materials. The first IAEA and UNSCOM inspections took place in May and June 1991.


Here's the quick run down on how Iraq chose to unconditionally accept the terms of the resolution which was to create the ceasefire of the Gulf War.
[quote]
UNSCOM: CHRONOLOGY OF MAIN EVENTS



3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.

6 Apr 1991 Iraq accepts resolution 687 (1991) (S/22456).

18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.

14 May 1991 Entry into force of the exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the Foreign Minister of Iraq setting out the rights, privileges and immunities of the Special Commission and its personnel in Iraq.

16 May 1991 Iraq submits revised declarations covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of the missile declaration.

9 Jun 1991 UNSCOM commences its first chemical weapons inspection.

23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.

17 Jun 1991 Security Council resolution 699 (1991), confirms that the Special Commission and the IAEA have a continuing authority to conduct activities under section C of resolution 687 (1991).

28 Jun 1991 Statement by the President of the Security Council deploring Iraq's denial of access to an inspection site and asking the Secretary-General to send a high-level mission to Baghdad immediately (S/22746).

30 Jun 1991 UNSCOM commences its first missile inspection.



5 Jul 1991 Report of the high-level mission sent to Iraq containing undertakings by Iraq of full cooperation, including immediate and unimpeded access to sites and the right to stop and inspection vehicles in movement (S/22761).

2 Aug 1991 Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".

15 Aug 1991 Security Council resolution 707 (1991), demands that Iraq provide without further delay full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programmes, as required by resolution 687 (1991).

6 Sep 1991 The first UNSCOM inspection team which intended to use helicopters is blocked by Iraq.

23 Sep 1991 Statement to the press by the President of the Security Council concerning Iraq's failure to provide unconditional acceptance of resolution 707 (1991) (SC/5306 - IK54).

21-30 Sep 1991 IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refu

[DarkHippie]

I'll repeat it again: <b>Only the security council can authorize war</b>. If it does not, then said war is illegal. There is no getting around this fact, no matter many resolutions there are.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[ChickenHawk]

<center><b>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" style="font-size: 18pt" color="#0250B0">LONGEST. POST. EVER.</font></b>

<IMG SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/fathernoel/.Pictures/parodysig.gif">
SIG CURRENTLY STUNTING * NEW SIG COMING THIS SPRING

[sxymale]

Five and Hippy, im surprised your here, id of thought youd be dancing with the other ignorant clueless protesters in Downtown Manhattan..???

[sxymale]

from chronwatch.com

You asked why I support the war. You wanted to understand why now, and why with Iraq rather than other, equally noxious, tyrants. In this letter, I'll try to cover what this war is about and what it isn't about.



This isn't a war about American blood for Iraqi oil. The United States and Great Britain have maintained sanctions on Iraqi oil since 1991 in the face of European and Asian opposition. If we had wanted Iraqi oil, as our oil companies have lobbied for years, we could have simply lifted sanctions and bought it.



It is a war brought about by blood for oil, however. One of the reasons Iraq poses a threat is because of its oil revenues and what they have bought and can buy. In the hands of a megalomaniacal dictator, oil revenues purchased the technology, built the infrastructure, and produced biological weapons like anthrax and smallpox and chemical weapons like VX nerve agent and mustard gas. There is blood for oil here but it is on the hands of the French and Germans who sold Saddam Hussein the technology and equipment so he could gas thousands of his own Kurdish citizens. There is blood for oil, the blood of thousands of Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqi Shia Moslems who died under the treads of Hussein's tanks, and armored personnel carriers or who were machine-gunned or blown apart by attack helicopters. This blood is on the hands of the Russians and Chinese who sold him these things. To know Hussein, his methods, and goals, and to build a nuclear reactor for him, as the French did at Osirik, makes you his accomplice not just a trading partner.



He invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He gassed Iranians. He gassed Kurds. On retreating from Kuwait, his army set fire to every oil well they could reach creating the greatest ecological disaster in Mid-East history. He will use every weapon in his arsenal. When he develops atomic weapons, he will use them. If he had atomic weapons now, he would use them on our troops. If we wait until he obtains them, he will use them on our troops and on his neighbors. This war is happening now, specifically because he is close to developing them. He has the means and the motive, and all he lacks is time. We cannot await this inevitability.



For all its dictatorial dysfunction, does the Middle East deserve to be under the nuclear thumb of one murdering tyrant? Do we wait for the illicit transfer of a backpack nuke to a terrorist organization who walks it into Los Angeles or New York or on a container ship coming into Oakland? Containment only works with rational governments and leaders who pay the price for their aggression. It doesn't work with stateless, suicidal Islamofacist terrorists.



This is not a threat you can see or touch now. This is frustrating for most Americans. But when you can see it or touch it, it will be too late to act. A new era was ushered in by the attacks of September 11, 2001. As you know, my wife was in Manhattan on 9/11 and watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center. She smelled the ozone and dust in the air, wondering if chemical or biological weapons were there as well. Even now, we have friends who will not go into Manhattan. How many other attacks in how many other cities must we endure? Is this the type of world we are consigned to live in? Do you want to live in a world like this? Do you want your children to live in a world like this?



Some say that North Korea is a more immediate threat. Is their motive to face one threat or avoid facing another? North Korea is an isolated, bankrupt ghost of Stalinism whose people are reducing to eating tree bark to stay alive. They will soon collapse on their own.



Some say that we must have the sanction of the United Nations. Where were these people during the Yugoslavian war, the Haitian intervention, or the Somalia debacle? Their vision ends at America's shores. Their signs and chants offer no viable alternative. They linger on hatred of the U.S. president because their arguments are intellectually bankrupt and they can offer nothing but pe

[DarkHippie]

syx: One- stick to the topic "is the war legal?"
two- don't you just love "political commentators" who don't quote even one source? It gives them such firm ground to stand on. If I wanted emotion, I'd go to a tent revival.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[TheMojoPin]

Five and Hippy, im surprised your here, id of thought youd be dancing with the other ignorant clueless protesters in Downtown Manhattan..???

Have you even bothered to take a look at exactly WHO is protesting? You may WANT to think it's nothing but college kids, hippies, thugs and the punks from the last few days...but you'd be very, very wrong. The marches today are filled with average, normal, everyday people from all walks of life. Just look at the news coverage as the cameras pan over the crowds, and you'll see thousands of seemingly "normal" people (WASPs, Republicans, Democrats, the elderly, parents,the middle-aged, etc.) who are all there for very different reasons that all come together to amount to the general agreement that they feel the war is wrong. You may not like it, but that's just how it is and how it's gonna be, sparky.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Butters]

I don't see y I cant play hop scotch in a nuclear silo whats up with that? .....................o yeah by the way I HOPE ALL FRENCH PEOPLE DIE IN A HORRIBLE CAR CRASH WITH BOZO THE CLOWN

Come on how many times in your life can you say...hehe ^.^

I don't want to do anything illegal but I would kill someone in front of their own moma for a ten-speed

[A.J.]

If I wanted emotion, I'd go to a tent revival.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/media/bluebro2_06.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

[DarkHippie]

Five and Hippy, im surprised your here, id of thought youd be dancing with the other ignorant clueless protesters in Downtown Manhattan..???
I was there for a little bit, but I had to leave early, long story

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Ron Zoni]

So war can only happen if the UN says it can? Did Iran and Iraq get the UN's permission when they were at war with each other? Did Iraq get permission from the UN when they invaded Kuwait?

To say a war is illegal if the UN doesn't say it's OK is ridiculous. The Un has made itself irrelevant, by not enforcing it's policies. The UN put Iraq on the council for human rights. That's insane. Iraq is one of the biggest abusers of human rights. If the Un is a peace organization, why would they ever say war is OK? The UN is nothing but a bureaucracy. Administration for administrations sake. Useless

[Se7en]

War is only legal & justified if the Security Council approves it?????

I'm sorry, I must have zoned there for a minute, because I thought that America was a sovereign nation, and thus could make decisions on it's own.

C'mon, DH, you're better than this. Don't make me have to disregard your posts like I've done with JerryTaker.

You may WANT to think it's nothing but college kids, hippies, thugs and the punks from the last few days...but you'd be very, very wrong.

I say that it is, and I'm not wrong.

It was a bunch of punk kids.

These fuckers majorly screwed up my commute into school the other day. I was SO praying for some police brutality, but I guess the cops were too busy dealing with Tobacco Terrorist.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[TheMojoPin]

I say that it is, and I'm not wrong.

It was a bunch of punk kids.

These fuckers majorly screwed up my commute into school the other day. I was SO praying for some police brutality, but I guess the cops were too busy dealing with Tobacco Terrorist.

*Sigh*

Dude, come on, check my post again. I specifically pointed out the differences between the protests this past week and the mass, peaceful MARCHES today across the country. There's a HUGE population mix in the marches today.

I have no love for those that caused public disturbances and damage and violence this past week. They degrade those of us that just want our voices heard and our numbers seen.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[DarkHippie]

War is only legal & justified if the Security Council approves it?????

I'm sorry, I must have zoned there for a minute, because I thought that America was a sovereign nation, and thus could make decisions on it's own.
that's what the charter says, you know, the one we helped create.

we are a soveriegn nation. we can make any decision we want, but we should be prepared to accpet any consequences that come with it, like universal disdain from the world.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Ron Zoni]

we are a soveriegn nation. we can make any decision we want, but we should be prepared to accpet any consequences that come with it, like universal disdain from the world.


So all members of the UN should be prepared to face the consequences if they break the rules. Are these the consequences Iraq is suffering for breaking the rules of the UN? For years they have not been held responsible for their illegal activities. Now they are. I love the way you are so quick to find fault with the USA, but not Iraq. I'm sure in your eyes, Iraq is just a victim. As much as I support your right to protest, you are misguided.

[CaptClown]

I was SO praying for some police brutality, but I guess the cops were too busy dealing with Tobacco Terrorist.


That is the Park Police's doing. P.G. County Police would have layeth the smacketh downeth.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

[DarkHippie]

Are these the consequences Iraq is suffering for breaking the rules of the UN?
economics sanctions and no-fly zones over 2/3 of the country were the deemed punishment for Iraq. A military takeover by another country I doubt was ever mentioned

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[FiveB247]

It's actually a lot simpler then you all want to make it.

Yes, Iraq broke sanctions by the UN and should be held responsible to the UN.

Did the US get approval by the UN to invade Iraq for regime change as we are pursuing? Or even get approval for invasion in order to get disarmament? No.

One doesn't justify the other. Both are violations of UN law. The US can say it is their sovereign right to invade as a nation interest. But it has nothing to do with international law. The same international laws the US wants to hold Iraq too, that they disregard in order to invade.

You all want to combine the idea of international law/ UN with the idea of it being justified....and it's not there.

So all members of the UN should be prepared to face the consequences if they break the rules.
That is exactly the point! All nations...including the US.

NATO is a militant subgroup of the US interests that try to justify actions when they don't go along with the UN. It has happened time and time again. When the US doesn't like what the UN says in regard to an issue, action, etc...NATO becomes their venue for solidarity.

And regarding the Protesters...I saw more older, peaceful people there and marching then any amounts of young, trouble makers. You just want a reason to collectively group them negatively to prove your own beliefs or ideas.

[spoon]

The UN is nothing but a bureaucracy. Administration for administrations sake. Useless.
Someone please post a picture of good old Hermes from "Futurama". *Level 37 Administrator!!! Look our Blix!

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">
Nothing...i have nothing!

[Ron Zoni]

If you trace the history of the UN, you'll see it came about to replace another peace organization. The League of Nations. The UN is going down this same road. The League of Nations became useless, irrelevant, and powerless. The UN has fast become all these things. The Un has been irrelevant since Korea. When UN committees argue more over the shape of the table that negotiations will be held at, rather than the actual negotiations, there is something radically wrong. There are dictators all over the world now. The UN does nothing. Where was the UN when Pol Pot killed 2 million of his own people? Where is the UN cleaning up the mess that is Africa?

The UN was against the US when the USSR put missiles in Cuba. For the UN to be against the USA is nothing new to us. It has always been against us. It's OK for Iraq to ignore the UN, but not the USA. If Iraq can ignore them, so can we. It's only fair. I would love to see the UN thrown out of the USA. Put the headquarters in Canada, or Switzerland. Nope, won't happen. They won't put up with the rest of the worlds shit. Unpaid rent, unpaid fines, diplomatic immunity. Nobody puts up with the worlds shit like the USA.

On rare occasions a world leaders will speak at this organization for peace. Yasser Arafat spoke there and said "kill the jews". Arafat actually brought a gun into the UN. No one is allowed to bring a gun into the UN, but they let him. Nikita Kruschev spoke there once. He took off his shoe, banging it on the podium, told the United States, "We will bury you". This is a peace organization????


Iraq has broken its surrender agreement. Japan and Germany still adhere to their surrender agreements from W.W.II, unless we approve changes. The UN is supposed to send troops into Iraq because of this. They won't. I believe some of the members of the Security Council (France) are dealing illegally with Iraq. Buying their oil and selling them arms. Iraq also owes Russia 8 Billion dollars. Russia would like its money before we kill anyone . When some counties speak out against us, it's not that we are wrong, it's that they have too much to lose.

Do you really think Iraq has done nothing wrong? Do you really think there are no terrorist camps in Iraq? Do you really think that Iraq isn't funding terrorism? After 9-11, Bush gave a speech. He said we would go after terrorism, no matter where it is. He didn't say we are getting Bin Laden and stopping. He said this will be a continuing effort. Our war on terrorism will gone on forever.

In the words of Thoreau, One person (country) in the right, is a majority. The UN, with it's long history against the US, means nothing. They do not promote the betterment of the world, they only promote the end of the US. We should ignore them.

[Shecky]

If you trace the history of the UN, you'll see it came about to replace another peace organization. The League of Nations. The UN is going down this same road. The League of Nations became useless, irrelevant, and powerless. The UN has fast become all these things. The Un has been irrelevant since Korea. When UN committees argue more over the shape of the table that negotiations will be held at, rather than the actual negotiations, there is something radically wrong. There are dictators all over the world now. The UN does nothing. Where was the UN when Pol Pot killed 2 million of his own peple? Where is the UN cleaning up the mess that is Africa?

The UN was against the US when the USSR put missiles in Cuba. For the UN to be against the USA is nothing new to us. It has always been against us. It's OK for Iraq to ignore the UN, but not the USA. If Iraq can ignore them, so can we. It's only fair. I would love to see the UN thrown out of the USA. Put the headquarters in Canada, or Switzerland. Nope, won't happen. They won't put up with the rest of the worlds shit. Unpaid rent, unpaid fines, diplomatic immunity. Nobody puts up with the worlds shit like the USA.

On rare occasions a world leaders will speak at this organization for peace. Yasser Arafat spoke there and said "kill the jews". Arafat actually brought a gun into the UN. No one is allowed to bring a gun into the UN, but they let him. Nikita Kruschev spoke there once. He took off his shoe, banging it on the podium, told the United States, "We will bury you". This is a peace organization????


Iraq has broken its surrender agreement. Japan and Germany still adhere to their surrender agreements from W.W.II, unless we approve changes. The UN is supposed to send troops into Iraq because of this. They won't. I believe some of the members of the Security Council (France) are dealing illegally with Iraq. Buying their oil and selling them arms. Iraq also owes Russia 8 Billion dollars. Russia would like its money before we kill anyone . When some counties speak out against us, it's not that we are wrong, it's that they have too much to lose.

Do you really think Iraq has done nothing wrong? Do you really think there are no terrorist camps in Iraq? Do you really think that Iraq isn't funding terrorism? After 9-11, Bush gave a speech. He said we would go after terrorism, no matter where it is. He didn't say we are getting Bin Laden and stopping. He said this will be a continuing effort. Our war on terrorism will gone on forever.

In the words of Thoreau, One person (country) in the right, is a majority. The UN, with it's long history against the US, means nothing. They do not promote the betterment of the world, they only promote the end of the US. We should ignore them.


I AGREE!!

Later On,
SHECKY

[spoon]

^^^ Same here! ^^^

It is now official as the US has placed formal complaints against Russia for illegally selling the Iraqis anti-tank missles and electronic/radar jamming technology. Other formal complaints are to come as the French, Germans and who would have guessed, the Chinese have been implemented too.

Oh you haven't heard of the newest UN discount on oil? It's called the "Banned Weapons & Technology for Discounted Oil".

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">
Nothing...i have nothing!