Iraq war illegal, says Annan

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3661134.stm

Couldn't resist being the first person to post it! (assuming I am)

James

Any relation? ;^)

[email hidden] (James Annan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3661134.stm

Couldn't resist being the first person to post it! (assuming I am)

That conclusion is so obvious under international law that it is
trivial. But some people can't understand logic even when it is
trivial.

JP

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3661134.stm

Couldn't resist being the first person to post it! (assuming I

am)

Kofi also delivered a scathing condemnation of bicycle disk
brakes. He demanded UN inspections and suggested deploying
troops to various factories. I am considering signing up with
Wrenches without Borders to monitor the situation. The Christian
group Canti-Believers may go, too. -- Jay Beattie.

"Michael Dart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3661134.stm

Couldn't resist being the first person to post it! (assuming I am)

James

Any relation? ;^)

I hope not if it took him 2 years to work out that the war was
illegal!

But seriously, I think the sounds are simple enough that the name pops
up with different origins around the world (Korea/Japan also).

James

Iraq war illegal, says Annan Well then the UN should take immediate action against the US and the UK. Oh wait, I forgot the UN couldn't take action against a grade school bully without the US or UK.

[email hidden] (JP) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (James Annan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

That conclusion is so obvious under international law that it is
trivial. But some people can't understand logic even when it is
trivial.

What logic would that be? White is Right (always)? It is good to be a Jew now.

ad6mj said:

James Annan Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope not if it took him 2 years to work out that the war was
illegal!

But seriously, I think the sounds are simple enough that the name pops
up with different origins around the world (Korea/Japan also).

James

*Iraq war illegal, says Annan * Well then the UN should take immediate
action against the US and the UK. Oh wait, I forgot the UN couldn't take
action against a grade school bully without the US or UK.

He'd be through graduate school before they started threatening actual
action even then.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

ad-<< Well then the UN should take immediate
action against the US and the UK. Oh wait, I forgot the UN couldn't take
action against a grade school bully without the US or UK. >><BR><BR>

But the UN sure could talk the hell out of it....

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

(Qui si parla Campagnolo ) said:

ad-<< Well then the UN should take immediate
action against the US and the UK. Oh wait, I forgot the UN couldn't take
action against a grade school bully without the US or UK. >><BR><BR>

But the UN sure could talk the hell out of it....

The only missing item is how much lunch money the kid could pony up to
keep the Security Council off his case.

I think we can agree on this - if the UN fulfill their friggin'
charter, the world would be a MUCH safer place (and one in which the
US didn't have to do all the heavy lifting).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

...
I think we can agree on this - if the UN fulfill their friggin'
charter, the world would be a MUCH safer place (and one in which the
US didn't have to do all the heavy lifting).

So how does the US violating the UN Charter [1] by invading Iraq help this?

[1] And by doing so, is also violating the US Constitution.

--
Tom Sherman

[email hidden] (James Annan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Couldn't resist being the first person to post it! (assuming I am)
James

This assumes that we recognise the UN as having jurisdiction over us.
In theory our very membership in the UN makes us subject to their laws
but a sizeable portion of our citizens and government do not see it
that way.

My only problem is trying to have it both ways. Part of our
justification for invading Iraq was that they did not comply with all
of the UN's conditions to end the Gulf War. When we attacked Iraq
it wasn't a UN action, it was a unilateral US action. Not obeying
the UN is a crime for Iraq but wasn't even a consideration for the US.
If failure to comply with the UN was the reason for war than the UN
should have been the one deciding if and when any military action
should be taken.

FWIW, my views on the UN are mixed. Back durring the cold war I saw
a world government as a way to possibly avoid WWIII but the idea of
a world government becoming tyranical was also very scary; if a
world government went bad there would literally be no place to
escape to for exile; to me this was almost as scary as nuclear
armageddon. In our corrent post-cold-war environment my ideal
would be for a UN or UN-type organization to exist but not have
any real power past an advisory role.

I do hope the EU becomes powerful enough that the US does not continue
as the only superpower. As many have observed, power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--
Bruce Jackson

Mark Hickey said:

ad6mj <[email hidden]> wrote:

r illegal, says Annan * Well then the UN should take immediate

Quoted message said:

action against the US and the UK. Oh wait, I forgot the UN couldn't take
action against a grade school bully without the US or UK.

He'd be through graduate school before they started threatening actual
action even then.

Make up your mind. Are UN rules and resolutions important
or not? It's obvious that GWB believes that they are VERY
important when they apply to Iraq but not when they apply to
Israel or the US.

Maybe the truth is that the neocons don't give one damn
about the UN except when they can be used as a tool to
perpetuate their own unilateral actions.

So, why don't we just drop the BS about Saddam ignoring UN
resolutions? OK?

Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, Il 815-223-1776
http://www.heronbicycles.com
http://www.tullios.com

[email hidden] (Richard Chan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (JP) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (James Annan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

That conclusion is so obvious under international law that it is
trivial. But some people can't understand logic even when it is
trivial.

What logic would that be? White is Right (always)? It is good to be a Jew now.

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about but the anti-Semitism
makes any further discussion impossible.

JP

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But the UN sure could talk the hell out of it....

That is the extent of what most member countries are willing to do.

They would rather sit on the sidelines and be critical of the U.S.
instead of trying to help.

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
I think we can agree on this - if the UN fulfill their friggin'
charter, the world would be a MUCH safer place (and one in which the
US didn't have to do all the heavy lifting).

So how does the US violating the UN Charter [1] by invading Iraq help

this?

Quoted message said:

[1] And by doing so, is also violating the US Constitution.

You need to explain your convoluted reasoning. The U.N. charter
has nothing at all to do with the U.S. Constitution.

Mark Jones said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But the UN sure could talk the hell out of it....

That is the extent of what most member countries are willing to do.

They would rather sit on the sidelines and be critical of the U.S.
instead of trying to help.

Until they need it.

Bill "help, that is" S.

"Bruce Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This assumes that we recognise the UN as having jurisdiction over us.
In theory our very membership in the UN makes us subject to their laws
but a sizeable portion of our citizens and government do not see it
that way.

In my opinion, the U.N. is only an advisory group and that is all the
power it deserves. It can request that military action be taken or
not taken, but the countries involved have to determine whether
they are willing to go along with this determination.

"Todd Kuzma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, why don't we just drop the BS about Saddam ignoring UN
resolutions? OK?

The truth is that these were U.S. resolutions with U.N. support
behind them. When the U.N. failed to continue enforcing the
resolutions, the U.S. decided it was time to take care of
business without the U.N.

Mark Jones said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
I think we can agree on this - if the UN fulfill their friggin'
charter, the world would be a MUCH safer place (and one in which the
US didn't have to do all the heavy lifting).

So how does the US violating the UN Charter [1] by invading Iraq help

this?

Quoted message said:

[1] And by doing so, is also violating the US Constitution.

You need to explain your convoluted reasoning. The U.N. charter
has nothing at all to do with the U.S. Constitution.

United States Constitution, Article. VI, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."

The United States ratified the UN Charter; thereby it is considered US
law until if and when the US withdraws from the UN. Therefore, violating
the UN Charter (as the US did by invading Iraq) is a violation of US law.

--
Tom Sherman