Justice and an Illegal war.

[pomod]

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?

 

[limerickman]

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.

 

[Weisse Luft]

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.

 

[ejglows]

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

 

[Weisse Luft]

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

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.

 

[wanderer390000]

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?

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

 

[limerickman]

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).

 

[Weisse Luft]

Someone needs to keep up with current events...

Monday 20th September 2004 :
All the good things they never tell you about today’s Iraq
By Mark Steyn

The other day, the BBC interviewed Kofi Annan. Don’t ask me why. But, in the course of the programme, the United Nations Secretary-General said that the liberation of Iraq did not conform to the UN Charter and therefore was "illegal". The best response to that comes from George W Bush, after Gerhard Schroder made a similar point last year: "International law?" said the President. "I better call my lawyer. He didn’t bring that up to me."

As the Australian Prime Minister John Howard (not to be confused with Michael Howard, ever) observed, the problem with the UN is that it’s "paralysed", and that paralysis favours the bad guys, whether in Iraq or Iran, where perpetual International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring seems to be barely a hindrance to the full-steam-ahead nuclear programme.

In Sudan, the civilised world is (so far) doing everything to conform with the UN charter, which means waiting till everyone’s been killed and then issuing a strong statement expressing grave concern.

As for Iraq, the UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan’s office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome.

He’s not the only voice from the lost world of September 10, 2001 weighing in. John Kerry, the doomed Democrat, has abandoned any talk of "victory" - in Iraq, I mean; he’s still hopeful of holding New Jersey. But instead he is promising to let America’s troops "come home", which is another way of saying "surrender"...

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

 

[jhuskey]

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.

 

[limerickman]

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


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1261388,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,885140,00.html

 

[Bikerman2004]

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.

Wouldn't that person be a hypocrite?

 

[Weisse Luft]

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


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1261388,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,885140,00.html

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.

 

[limerickman]

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.

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.

 

[Weisse Luft]

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.

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.

 

[Bikerman2004]

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.

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

 

[limerickman]

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.

As I have pointed out to you before the Oil for Food program was devised
under the two preceeding Secretary General (De Cuelliar and Boutros Gali).
And was established in the early 1990's following Gulf War One.
The Oil for Food program was operated on the basis of an escrow-account
held in New York.
This means that money paid from the procedes of oil sales were to be held and controlled within the escrow account, as mandated when the account was created, in a bank in New York City.

Your claim about a supposed scandal concerning oil for food funds - if it is a valid claim, which I very much doubt - would need to be addressed in the following way.
Which banker allowed access to the escrow account ?
Who authorised the banker to transfer funds ?

If an escrow account is setup - no one can move funds without due authorisation.
So, if the funds were moved as you contend - the question needs to be asked
who gave the banker in question the authority to move funds from the escrow
account.

 

[limerickman]

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

Just back from vacation.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Just back from vacation.

Hope it was good one.

 

[Weisse Luft]

Read up. It wasn't just a few people...

Russia has long been a key supporter of rogue states in the Middle East, even building a nuclear reactor for the atomic ayatollahs in Tehran. Only with Russian assistance has Iran been able to sustain its nuclear weapons program.



Russia played a crucial role in rearming Saddam Hussein after the First Gulf War. Russian contractors from companies with close links to the Russian military were meeting with Saddam and his inner circle almost until the very end of that corrupt and brutal regime. Russia not only provided basic weapons but also more sophisticated items, such as night vision equipment. Belarus, whose megalomaniac dictator is closely tied to Russia, was helping to rebuild Saddam’s air defense system and providing a wide range of other weapons to the Iraqi dictator (many shipped through Syria). It is unlikely the Belarusans would have done this without tacit Russian approval.



In return, money from Saddam’s oil for food program greased the wheels for Russian officials, both inside the government and in the semi-official channels where real power is distributed in Russia. Documents found in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam revealed that the largest number of payoffs went to Russian recipients, most of them of them governmental or quasi-governmental

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15135

 

[limerickman]

Hope it was good one.

Well, thanks Bikerman, yes it was a very nice trip to Northern Spain - Barcelona, Pamplona and San Sebastian.
Through a region called the Pays Vasco (Basque Region).
A lot of driving, but very well worth it.

I don't know if you've ever been to the Basque Country - if you haven't and you get the chance to go to this region, I'd recommend it.
Plenty of nice hotels/restaurants and very scenic.
People are very nice too.