Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

Read it from the horses mouth. More importantly read sections 8,9, 20-24. Not only was he in non-compliance due to not letting inspectors in. He was in non-compliance for purchasing weapons in the black market from countries like France and Russia.

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement

And then read this and tell me they were in compliance.


And then read the following from the UN regarding Iraqs timeline on the issue.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom...gy/chronologyframe.htm

This issue is moot on account that only the Security Council can authorize the use of force which they never did. The US sought an additional resolution which would have allowed the use of force but never received it. Bush went ahead with the invasion without an authorization from the SC.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think I'll vote for Dean.

Dean Martin?

 

[Genx87]

This issue is moot on account that only the Security Council can authorize the use of force which they never did. The US sought an additional resolution which would have allowed the use of force but never received it. Bush went ahead with the invasion without an authorization from the SC.

Point is not moot because people bitch the US went behind the UNs back. They have a resolution on the table which authorizes the use of force if Saddam doesnt comply. He didnt comply and we used force.

Saying it is moot is nothing but saying you dont have an argument for it.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

Read it from the horses mouth. More importantly read sections 8,9, 20-24. Not only was he in non-compliance due to not letting inspectors in. He was in non-compliance for purchasing weapons in the black market from countries like France and Russia.

687

And then read this and tell me they were in compliance.


And then read the following from the UN regarding Iraqs timeline on the issue.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom...gy/chronologyframe.htm

That is resolution 687 and not 678 which authorizes the use of force

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: GrGr
You fail to see the point. The point is if Bush broke the UN Charter he broke US law. The UN charter is part of the supreme law of the land. If President Bush broke the supreme law of the land he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.

The UN Charter is not....I repeat NOT part of the "supreme law of the land" for the United States. Oh the UN and some of the far left libbies would like it to be, but that is not the case.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People

President Bush maintains that Iraq?s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America?s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that ? except in response to an armed attack ? nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.


The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand.


Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq.


Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.


The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism.


We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration?s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully.

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

I think these experts in US law have a clue about what is US law and what isn't.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

Ahhh....my friend let me quote a little something to you....you may have seen/heard it before.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm guessing you know what that is from. Yes the President is sworn to uphold it. Here's the good part......no matter what treaty or agreement the Congress may have ratified and the President may have signed nothing....I repeat nothing trumps the Constitution.

Personally I don't want the UN telling us when we can and cannot defend ourselves. No thanks.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: GrGr
You fail to see the point. The point is if Bush broke the UN Charter he broke US law. The UN charter is part of the supreme law of the land. If President Bush broke the supreme law of the land he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.

The UN Charter is not....I repeat NOT part of the "supreme law of the land" for the United States. Oh the UN and some of the far left libbies would like it to be, but that is not the case.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People

President Bush maintains that Iraq?s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America?s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that ? except in response to an armed attack ? nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.


The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand.


Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq.


Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.


The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism.


We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration?s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully.

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

I think these experts in US law have a clue about what is US law and what isn't.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

Ahhh....my friend let me quote a little something to you....you may have seen/heard it before.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm guessing you know what that is from. Yes the President is sworn to uphold it. Here's the good part......no matter what treaty or agreement the Congress may have ratified and the President may have signed nothing....I repeat nothing trumps the Constitution.

Personally I don't want the UN telling us when we can and cannot defend ourselves. No thanks.

Iraq did not threaten the US so the defence against Iraq argument is moot.

Every nation is entiteled to defend itself, even under the UN charter. Defense is not the point. Armed aggression is.

 

[GoPackGo]

Notice the UN did nothing to stop it.

So I guess we are the rulers of the planet.

All shall kneel before an American and plead mercy!

Our rule shall be swift but harsh, cold yet heartless.

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News**

Major U.S. Allies Reject Annan Claim.

LONDON - U.S. allies Britain and Australia on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) that the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was "illegal" because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.

**Film at Eleven**

It was only a matter of time before the left's new hero was officially denounced.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News**

Major U.S. Allies Reject Annan Claim.

LONDON - U.S. allies Britain and Australia on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) that the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was "illegal" because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.

**Film at Eleven**

It was only a matter of time before the left's new hero was officially denounced.

what? were people expecting "oh allright then, I guess it was illegal" ?
and right now I cant see any legal basis behind the war

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: GrGr
You fail to see the point. The point is if Bush broke the UN Charter he broke US law. The UN charter is part of the supreme law of the land. If President Bush broke the supreme law of the land he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.

The UN Charter is not....I repeat NOT part of the "supreme law of the land" for the United States. Oh the UN and some of the far left libbies would like it to be, but that is not the case.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People

President Bush maintains that Iraq?s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America?s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that ? except in response to an armed attack ? nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.


The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand.


Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq.


Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.


The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism.


We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration?s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully.

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

I think these experts in US law have a clue about what is US law and what isn't.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

Ahhh....my friend let me quote a little something to you....you may have seen/heard it before.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm guessing you know what that is from. Yes the President is sworn to uphold it. Here's the good part......no matter what treaty or agreement the Congress may have ratified and the President may have signed nothing....I repeat nothing trumps the Constitution.

Personally I don't want the UN telling us when we can and cannot defend ourselves. No thanks.

Iraq did not threaten the US so the defence against Iraq argument is moot.

Every nation is entiteled to defend itself, even under the UN charter. Defense is not the point. Armed aggression is.

Oh, and those were spit balls they were shooting at our planes. How quickly we forget, but you were probably still in high school back then and really didn't care, that's understandable.

And don't give me the bullsh1t line that the no fly zones were also illegal.

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News**

Major U.S. Allies Reject Annan Claim.

LONDON - U.S. allies Britain and Australia on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) that the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was "illegal" because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.

**Film at Eleven**

It was only a matter of time before the left's new hero was officially denounced.

"authorities in the UK, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria and Japan said the war was backed by international law"

BBC LINK

 

[GrGr]

What, Tony Blair and John Howard support Bush? Shocking I tell ya, shocking. Blair is only hanging on by a thread at this point. If he allowed that Annan is right he would be forced to resign.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Let's not forget, in their greedy rush for the money after the dirty work was done, that the UN authorized the US occupation of Iraq in a UN Resolution. Strange that Kofi completely ignores that little tidbit of fact.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's not forget, in their greedy rush for the money after the dirty work was done, that the UN authorized the US occupation of Iraq in a UN Resolution. Strange that Kofi completely ignores that little tidbit of fact.

how does that make the war legal?
if I remember correctly the Un resolution accepted the Iaqi interm government as a representatives of Iraq

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: jetaime

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

what a mindless idiot. i wish your family suffers the same fate as those 10000+ innocent iraqis who got rained with bombs, because of what another idiot thought was RIGHT.

wtf was RIGHT about a war that had no WMD basis, no TERRORISM basis and this ridiculous moral argument makes you all sound even more stupid. the insurgents will fight the LIBERATION forces but not Saddam's OPPRESSIVE regime??? Give me a break :roll:

and this war had no legal basis. the threat of serious consequences was if Saddam didnt cooperate and did not declare the weapons the US said they had. Hans Blix said the Iraqi government IS cooperating but could be better, and the Iraqi government did issue a declaration of weapons, destroyed and existing. But ofcourse, this President WANTED to go to war, so his government said such and such stockpile is unaccounted for, and if we say you have them, then you MUST have them until you prove you dont have them.

Take a week off to regain your composure!

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: jetaime

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

what a mindless idiot. i wish your family suffers the same fate as those 10000+ innocent iraqis who got rained with bombs, because of what another idiot thought was RIGHT.

wtf was RIGHT about a war that had no WMD basis, no TERRORISM basis and this ridiculous moral argument makes you all sound even more stupid. the insurgents will fight the LIBERATION forces but not Saddam's OPPRESSIVE regime??? Give me a break :roll:

What part of NO PERSONNAL FLAMES do you not understand?

Mods, can we get a vacation here?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's not forget, in their greedy rush for the money after the dirty work was done, that the UN authorized the US occupation of Iraq in a UN Resolution. Strange that Kofi completely ignores that little tidbit of fact.

how does that make the war legal?
if I remember correctly the Un resolution accepted the Iaqi interm government as a representatives of Iraq

Yes it did. It also officially recognized the US as a legitimate occupier of Iraq. 'Hey guys, your war was illegal, but your occupation due to that war is not.' Does that make any sense?

Of course, the UN resolution was really all about money and openeing up contracting opportunities to many of those countries that were locked out by the US initially for non-participation. That was the real driving force behind it. When there's a buck to be made, the protest signs are secondary considerations.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: jetaime

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

what a mindless idiot. i wish your family suffers the same fate as those 10000+ innocent iraqis who got rained with bombs, because of what another idiot thought was RIGHT.

wtf was RIGHT about a war that had no WMD basis, no TERRORISM basis and this ridiculous moral argument makes you all sound even more stupid. the insurgents will fight the LIBERATION forces but not Saddam's OPPRESSIVE regime??? Give me a break :roll:

and this war had no legal basis. the threat of serious consequences was if Saddam didnt cooperate and did not declare the weapons the US said they had. Hans Blix said the Iraqi government IS cooperating but could be better, and the Iraqi government did issue a declaration of weapons, destroyed and existing. But ofcourse, this President WANTED to go to war, so his government said such and such stockpile is unaccounted for, and if we say you have them, then you MUST have them until you prove you dont have them.

Hey Osama....what's up? Guess the T1 to your cave is back up.

:thumbsup:

 

[Red Dawn]

Legalk..illegal..The fact is it has turned out to be a major blunder.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's not forget, in their greedy rush for the money after the dirty work was done, that the UN authorized the US occupation of Iraq in a UN Resolution. Strange that Kofi completely ignores that little tidbit of fact.

how does that make the war legal?
if I remember correctly the Un resolution accepted the Iaqi interm government as a representatives of Iraq

Yes it did. It also officially recognized the US as a legitimate occupier of Iraq. 'Hey guys, your war was illegal, but your occupation due to that war is not.' Does that make any sense?

Of course, the UN resolution was really all about money and openeing up contracting opportunities to many of those countries that were locked out by the US initially for non-participation. That was the real driving force behind it. When there's a buck to be made, the protest signs are secondary considerations.

could you give me the number of the resolution so I can look it up?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: KK

Iraq did not threaten the US so the defence against Iraq argument is moot.

Every nation is entiteled to defend itself, even under the UN charter. Defense is not the point. Armed aggression is.

Oh, and those were spit balls they were shooting at our planes. How quickly we forget, but you were probably still in high school back then and really didn't care, that's understandable.

And don't give me the bullsh1t line that the no fly zones were also illegal.[/quote]

Shooting at our planes flying over their terrotory doesn't mean Iraq was a threat to the US main land. If you want to use the US planes being shot at, you and Bush should've gone to UN, tell the people in the US and around the world that was the reason. But it was not the case was it?

Bush Admin argued Iraq was a threat to the US because they had WMD. That was the stated reason to start this war and it turned out to be false. Even Bush Admin now called Iraq only "a gathering threat". Invading a country based on a false claim made this war illegal. US and Bush was wrong about Iraq and their WMD, simple as that. And as a result, tens of thousand has died and Iraq has turned into this chaos.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: jetaime

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

what a mindless idiot. i wish your family suffers the same fate as those 10000+ innocent iraqis who got rained with bombs, because of what another idiot thought was RIGHT.

wtf was RIGHT about a war that had no WMD basis, no TERRORISM basis and this ridiculous moral argument makes you all sound even more stupid. the insurgents will fight the LIBERATION forces but not Saddam's OPPRESSIVE regime??? Give me a break :roll:

and this war had no legal basis. the threat of serious consequences was if Saddam didnt cooperate and did not declare the weapons the US said they had. Hans Blix said the Iraqi government IS cooperating but could be better, and the Iraqi government did issue a declaration of weapons, destroyed and existing. But ofcourse, this President WANTED to go to war, so his government said such and such stockpile is unaccounted for, and if we say you have them, then you MUST have them until you prove you dont have them.

Hey Osama....what's up? Guess the T1 to your cave is back up.

:thumbsup:

another idiot :roll:

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: Makromizer

Originally posted by: Genx87

So why don't we just invade Sudan by ourself?

I thought we were talking about the failings of the UN here? What does the US have to do with that? If we are going down that road then why havent France, Germany, or Russia done the same?

If there's no one proposing a resolution, the U.N. won't do sh*t about it. France and Germany are unlikely gonna do something outside Europe without U.N. or some other strong support, Russia is ruled by a patriarchic KGB-dude, not interested in much more than getting as much power as possible.
But it's not like everyone is proposing resolutions concerning Sudan and some Veto-Nations are denying them, there are'nt any proposals yet.

That's just BS. The exact opposite is true.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

The United States circulated a resolution Wednesday to member nations of the U.N. Security Council calling for sanctions against the militias being blamed for what has been described as a "humanitarian catastrophe" in Sudan.

The US has had a resolution before the security council since June. It has not been passed because Russia and China have said they will veto it if sanctions are threatened. This might have something to do with the fact that China is the largest importer of Sudanese oil.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/30/sudan.powell
http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/9789.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6003873/

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's not forget, in their greedy rush for the money after the dirty work was done, that the UN authorized the US occupation of Iraq in a UN Resolution. Strange that Kofi completely ignores that little tidbit of fact.

how does that make the war legal?
if I remember correctly the Un resolution accepted the Iaqi interm government as a representatives of Iraq

Yes it did. It also officially recognized the US as a legitimate occupier of Iraq. 'Hey guys, your war was illegal, but your occupation due to that war is not.' Does that make any sense?

Of course, the UN resolution was really all about money and openeing up contracting opportunities to many of those countries that were locked out by the US initially for non-participation. That was the real driving force behind it. When there's a buck to be made, the protest signs are secondary considerations.

could you give me the number of the resolution so I can look it up?

1483

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's not forget, in their greedy rush for the money after the dirty work was done, that the UN authorized the US occupation of Iraq in a UN Resolution. Strange that Kofi completely ignores that little tidbit of fact.

how does that make the war legal?
if I remember correctly the Un resolution accepted the Iaqi interm government as a representatives of Iraq

Yes it did. It also officially recognized the US as a legitimate occupier of Iraq. 'Hey guys, your war was illegal, but your occupation due to that war is not.' Does that make any sense?

Of course, the UN resolution was really all about money and openeing up contracting opportunities to many of those countries that were locked out by the US initially for non-participation. That was the real driving force behind it. When there's a buck to be made, the protest signs are secondary considerations.

I already made a similar point earlier in the thread. The US could have had the support of other nations and had the go ahead from the Security Council had the US wanted to. That is not the point with this thread. The point is that the President of the USA broke the law to further his personal agenda. That is an impeacheable offence and he should be held accountable for his actions.