Justice and an Illegal war.

Last week Kofi Annan explicitly stated to the BBC that the war in Iraq was illegal, no news here to millions of people all over the world but contentious still in certain conservative circles in the US, England and Australia, (i.e., the countries who circumvented a UN authorization.) The defense of those governments is that Iraq’s failure to comply with various UN resolutions since the Gulf war warranted the use of force. However, at the same time those same government’s lead by the US site the UN’s failure to sufficiently deal with the situation as part of their rational in claiming their sovereign right to use force, undermining the credibility and democratic authority of the UN in the process. This is a contradiction and another example of type of double standard we are used to seeing in US foreign policy.

But, whatever, none of this is news to anyone here and I would guess that most of you here are either for this notion or against it. I want to ask should the architects of the Iraq war face trial and some sort of censure under international law? But, I already know how divisive the response would be in this somewhat polarized forum. So instead I would like to pose the following questions.

1. Should the international community function as a democracy?

2. If "the war on terrorism” as this has been defined is indeed a global war is some sort of international consensus needed in the application of force?

3. What is the best way to deal with a rogue country who acts in contempt of the international community?

4. If such a rogue nation is also a superpower should they be governed by the same set of international laws and principals and dealt with equally?

It's a multifacted question you ask (I'm just back from holiday in Spain - thus my delay in replying).
Of course the perpetrators of the war should be answerable - though you know as well as I do that they will not be charged.

The USA is not a member of the World Court simple because it will not put itself in to a forum to which it might be answerable.

Let's remember the premise for the invasion of Iraq - WMD, nuclear biological weapons, sponsorship of terrorism.

No physical evidence of such charges has been uncovered in Iraq in the 17 months since the USA and Britain invaded Iraq.
The double standard that is invoked by Britain and the USA is interesting - they circumnavigate the UN when it suits them (Sept 2002-March 2003) and then invoke the UN since May 2003 in order to clean up the mess caused by their illegal invasion.

The Iraqi goverment under Hussein was despicable but it was despicable between 1979-1991 and it was supported and indeed assisted by the international community.
So to answer your question, a clear and unambiguous criteria would need to be constructed which would fullfill that the actions/inactions of a country constitute international censure.

Just wait until the ink is dry on the Oil for Food CORRUPTION investigation, if the stonewalling by the UN can be overcome. The proceeds from some of this corruption were funneled into terrorist organizations, namely Al Quaeda. The accounting of Osama bin Laden's liquid assets showed insufficient funds to bankroll the operations much past 1997 since most of his wealth was frozen after his banishment from the Kingdom in the early 1990's.

This is just cutting edge but it all points to Kofi Annan. He is toast and is just trying to divert attention. Justice, be it slow, is on a dark horse and it is following him whereever he goes. And Switzerland, that collection of supposed neutral cantons, is a harbor of shell corporations created to hide the trail.

I like the official document stating there arent any WMDS...that makes me feel real proud. It isnt easy living abroad and being held responsible for my country.

e

__________________
If you cant keep up, then you simply dont want to.

Again, absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. The UN Resolutions were absolute in all but enforcement. The burden of proof of disarmament was on the Iraqis. They were given the opportunity to do so before the resumation of hostilities. That they chose to ignore is in itself, an admission of guilt.

Just wait for the Annan house of cards to fall. This is getting highly interesting with coruption totaling in the billions of Dollars.

What the UN is doing in the world is bad and will cause furture wars, Kofi Annan saying that the war was ilegal will cost more lives.If the UN had disarmed Iraq like they were ment to then no"ilegal war" (so called) would have been needed. is it not allso ilegal to kill 1 000 0000 of your own people or to sit there and watch 2000 women and kids being shot while the UN sat there and did nothing ( as in rawanda) it is about time they started to do what they are ment to do to soved the problems and stop running away as they did in east temore and Iraq

In respect of Iraq - there was nothing to disarm.

There were no weapons of mass destruction.
On both sides of the Atlantic, official enquiries have stated unequivocally that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor was there any weapons of mass destruction program (see 9/11 Senate Commission
Report for the USA and Lord Butlers report to the War in Iraq).

Someone needs to keep up with current events...

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3409

Isn't it odd that the same people will accept lack of evidence on one subject such as weapons of mass destruction and yet will not accept lack of evidence on another as truth (Armstrong doping).
Non related subjects and one has greater implications but an interesting observation.

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

Read the following links which show how the USA lied about WMD and Iraq (and Al Qaeda)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...307529,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...307529,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/sto...261388,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...5140%2C00.html

Wouldn't that person be a hypocrite?

Incomplete data. Old news. The UN Oil for Food scandal is just breaking but has been in process for a very long time. The stories bantered about on WMD are nothing more than red herrings to obscure the UN corruption. If you thought the League of Nations was bad...I'll take a wimp for my team before I pick a back stabber.

It's a fair point.

However, as you also point out, the seriousness of both subjects differ.
I think that Iraq is too important an issue not to be required to have 100% certainty.
In the British and USA's case, the argument for going to war - made between
Sept 2002 and March 2003 - was disputed categorically here in Europe.
People openly disputed the links made by Blair of alleged co-operation by Hussein and BinLaden.

As regards Arnstrong and the situation with him - it's a sporting discussion that hasn't involved in the thousands that have occured in Iraq.
But I do take your point.

False analogy. Lance has never been caught using banned substances. The false positive for corticoid steriod is a joke as its impossible to achieve any benefit other than using large amounts to mask anabolics. But since it was threshold detection limit, it doesn't factor.

The fact you are missing on Iraq is they were beholden to comply fully with both UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, an agreement they violated on many occassions.

Welcome back Limerickman. I must say the forum was a little less interesting without your input.