Support NeoGAF

[Suranga3]

UNITED NATIONS - The U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq without the approval of the United Nations Security Council was illegal, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview Wednesday.
"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal," he said. "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time – without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

Military action is allowed under the UN Charter when approved by the Security Council.

CBC
Reaction from Countries who supported the war - BBC

These statements should have been made at day one of the invasion not a year and a half after.

 

[Tritroid]

These statements should have been made at day one of the invasion not a year and a half after.

Yeah well that's how the UN tends to operate isn't it. Hence the US going through with the Iraq-invasion without UN approval.

 

[Deg]

CBC
Reaction from Countries who supported the war - BBC

These statements should have been made at day one of the invasion not a year and a half after.

they were sadly.

 

[Makura]

I don't put much stock in the U.N.'s "point of view and the UN Charter point of view". Especially when it contradicts itself.

 

[Koshiro]

I don't put much stock in the U.N.'s "point of view and the UN Charter point of view". Especially when it contradicts itself.

WTF?

 

[pestul]

I don't put much stock in the U.N.'s "point of view and the UN Charter point of view".

This viewpoint is probably the saddest outcome of the offensive.. the "Because they didn't agree with us, they must be useless" mentality.

 

[Azih]

So what sort of international cooperation mechanism would you replace the UN with then Makura?

 

[xsarien]

I don't put much stock in the U.N.'s "point of view and the UN Charter point of view". Especially when it contradicts itself.

That's OK. Because now, thanks to our unilateral actions, many countries don't put too much stock in what the U.S. has to say. You can thank Bush for completely squandering any and all international sympathy for 9/11.

But hey, you got your tax cut, right?

 

[Miburou]

Superpowers, and their very close allies, are above the UN. Always have, always will.

 

[pestul]

I don't put much stock in the U.N.'s "point of view and the UN Charter point of view". Especially when it contradicts itself.

Dude, the UN contradicts itself because countries have differing points of view regarding international policy. Luckily, the will of the majority is mostly adapted. Not so for the Iraq war.

 

[pestul]

The US & GB.. and a few piddley countries are above the UN. Always have, always will.

Edited.

 

[Phoenix]

That's OK. Because now, thanks to our unilateral actions, many countries don't put too much stock in what the U.S. has to say. You can thank Bush for completely squandering any and all international sympathy for 9/11.

But hey, you got your tax cut, right?

I don't think having "international sympathy for 9/11" is an admirable goal personally. I don't agree with what we did, but that's an odd viewpoint to take. Sympathy is not some currency to be bartered with.

 

[Azih]

Superpowers, and their very close allies, are above the UN. Always have, always will.

But weren't France, Germany, Canada, Mexico once considered very close allies?


Or are you defining very close allies as 'countries that agree with us on an issue by issue basis'.

 

[pestul]

Sympathy is not some currency to be bartered with.

To the morally sound, true. We're talking about politicians here.

 

[Phoenix]

The countries that founded the UN and have veto powers are above the UN. Always have, always will.

Edited..

Reedited for correctness.

 

[xsarien]

To the morally sound, true. We're talking about politicians here.

That's what I'm talking about, for the most part. Every civilized country was ready to "help," so to speak, and we essentially told them all to fuck off, and that terrorism will be fought our way.

"You're either with us, or against us." The President has put forth plenty of whoppers since he entered office, but that was the single most divisive statement of his term. It took a horribly complex issue - terrorism - and turned it into yet another Republican black/white comparison.

Disgusting.

 

[open_mouth_]

OK, it's illegal, now what the heck can they do about it??? Nada.

 

[pestul]

OK, it's illegal, now what the heck can they do about it??? Nada.

 

[Pimpwerx]

A year and a half late, hundreds of billions of dollars short. This should have been said last year instead of just bending over and letting the US do as it pleased. They should pass a resolution...if there wasn't 100% certainty the US would veto it. PEACE.

 

[MIMIC]

they were sadly.

Exactly. This was said in March of 2003.

 

[radioheadrule83]

This viewpoint is probably the saddest outcome of the offensive.. the "Because they didn't agree with us, they must be useless" mentality.

The UN is not infallable.

The secretary general has chosen this time of the year to make the most explicitly worded condemnation he has made since the invasion for a political reason IMO. And what has he the right to influence his member states personally?

The UN couldn't act over Kosovo in time, nor Rwanda in time, it doesn't look like it's acting over Sudan/Darfur in time... it wouldn't have acted over UNSCR 1441 and the Iraq problem either. At least thats what I think the thinking was in Washington and London. Its probably quite likely there were dubious motives involved as well from some parties (hello oil board members), but IMO it is perfectly clear to me that you can argue 1441 was violated by Iraq. That it was both creating weapons banned under the agreement, was non-conciliatory/co-operative until 100,000 troops were on its doorstep, and even then only offered words... and they were stealing from the Oil for Food programme. Making UN imposed sanctions little more than a cruelty to the Iraqi people.

As for the French and the Germans, not only are they trying to create a European force that can polarise itself against its own traditional allies - the UK and US - for monetary and/or power gain (as all good countries do)... but they had interests in oil contracts held with the ba'athists along with the Russians. Don't see that come up often either... just the usual "no war for oil" rhetoric that people have been singing since the first gulf war, when history judged that we were right.

I know people can never be swung on issues like these but this is my viewpoint, I appreciate others feel differently. This isn't a black/white wrong/right issue. Not at all.

Thom

 

[DarienA]

True they were said right thing... the UN is one of the ultimate examples of an organization whose powers is directly derived from the participation of its members.

 

[Miburou]

But weren't France, Germany, Canada, Mexico once considered very close allies?


Or are you defining very close allies as 'countries that agree with us on an issue by issue basis'.

The latter.

 

[Azih]

That it was both creating weapons banned under the agreement,

The only weapons I recall being found in Iraq that were banned under the agreement were a buncha rockets that exceeded the maximum range of what Iraq was allowed for self defense.... and then everybody realised that if the rockets were weighed down with a missile payload they would be within the agreed limits.



Miborou: I think you should amend the original statement to just 'Superpowers' then, because the very close allies are really somewhat superflous.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

This is a problem for the UN I suppose ... in that while they may have expressed disagreement back at the time, the only contrary course of action - militarily stopping the US from doing what it did - was essentially unthinkable. I think it's probably a bit more thinkable these days, but still, I think it's true to say the UN is not one for grasping nettles.

"You're either with us, or against us." The President has put forth plenty of whoppers since he entered office, but that was the single most divisive statement of his term. It took a horribly complex issue - terrorism - and turned it into yet another Republican black/white comparison.

Disgusting.

Well you have to appeal to perspectival interplay here. If it wasn't for those whose natural bent is to cast things in black and white, the rest of us wouldn't have so much fun breaking things back down into colours. This is true - we absolutely need people who have the strength to draw lines and say this is one thing, and this is another; just as we need people with the strength and courage to challenge those distinctions. Of course it is abused, and abused at the top of the tree, that being its nature. There are also abuses on the other end of the scale, being the moral laziness and indifference of those who take advantage of the compassion built into the world by the strong of both sides of the coin. This abuse is equivalent, in being more multifarious, yet smaller and necessarily less organised.

Face it, it's being able to draw things in black and white that allows you to label this a Republican brand of foul play

 

[Miburou]

Miborou: I think you should amend the original statement to just 'Superpowers' then, because the very close allies are really somewhat superflous.

Well, with close allies I had just one country in mind that seems to be able to get away with everything.

 

[Guileless]

Every war in the history of human civilization, except the First Gulf War , is illegal because none of them were approved by the UN Security Council.

 

[pestul]

Every war in the history of human civilization, except the First Gulf War , is illegal because none of them were approved by the UN Security Council.

Yeah, and I wonder how many World Wars we could have survived post 1945..

 

[Azih]

Well, with close allies I had just one country in mind that seems to be able to get away with everything.

Ah, say no more, say no more.

 

[Dan]

This viewpoint is probably the saddest outcome of the offensive.. the "Because they didn't agree with us, they must be useless" mentality.

Umm. No. Let's try this: because they couldn't stop us, they must be useless. No matter what your view on the Iraq war is, the fact remains the UN failed. It failed to either support the pre-emptive removal of WMDs (which apparently don't exist) or it failed to stop a powerful nation from acting on its own and against world opinion. I don't really see how this can be argued. The UN is way past its expiration date.

 

[xsarien]

Umm. No. Let's try this: because they couldn't stop us, they must be useless. No matter what your view on the Iraq war is, the fact remains the UN failed. It failed to either support the pre-emptive removal of WMDs

The UN had inspectors in Iraq right up until the point Bush wanted to push The Button. They were doing their job, looking for weapons with actual cooperation from the Iraqis. Bush didn't want to wait, though, and now he has to suffer the consequences of his actions.

 

[Hamfam]

So the US should be able to do whatever it wants, until the UN or international community physically forces it to abide by its will?

That can be arranged...

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

The UN had inspectors in Iraq right up until the point Bush wanted to push The Button. They were doing their job, looking for weapons with actual cooperation from the Iraqis. Bush didn't want to wait, though, and now he has to suffer the consequences of his actions.

It's not Bush that has to suffer this it's the young men and women that go into Iraq that do.

 

[Koshiro]

Superpowers, and their very close allies, are above the UN. Always have, always will.

What is it with people whose name begins with 'M' in this topic?

 

[Dan]

The UN had inspectors in Iraq right up until the point Bush wanted to push The Button. They were doing their job, looking for weapons with actual cooperation from the Iraqis. Bush didn't want to wait, though, and now he has to suffer the consequences of his actions.

But again, the UN failed to stop the US from acting. It has also failed to punish the US for its actions.

So the US should be able to do whatever it wants, until the UN or international community physically forces it to abide by its will?

I'm not saying that, but I don't believe an effective world body can be maintained based on assumed goodwill and voluntary compliance of its conclusions, suggestions and resolutions.

Gotta love how people see things in black and white. "Oh, he doesn't like this method, well, he must want the exact fucking other extreme, right?" *rolls eyes*

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

But again, the UN failed to stop the US from acting. It has also failed to punish the US for its actions.

How are you going to punish your biggest checkbook and most powerful member. The UN can only do what the US allows it to do.

 

[Dan]

How are you going to punish your biggest checkbook and most powerful member. The UN can only do what the US allows it to do.

What's your point? I'm the one saying that the UN is flawed and needs to go. World government needs to get with the times and be formed to address the problems of the world, not the best interests of the major world players from the WWII era.

Does anyone read anymore?

 

[Phoenix]

How are you going to punish your biggest checkbook and most powerful member. The UN can only do what the US allows it to do.

The UN can impose sanctions against the US the same way it does everyone else. The problem with the UN is that they are afraid to take a stance, afraid to lose members, afraid of the US saying 'well fuck it, we'll take our ball and go home'. So long as you are afraid of what might happen if you act, you won't act.

 

[tedtropy]

The UN can impose sanctions against the US the same way it does everyone else. The problem with the UN is that they are afraid to take a stance, afraid to lose members, afraid of the US saying 'well fuck it, we'll take our ball and go home'. So long as you are afraid of what might happen if you act, you won't act.

They are wise to fear us. Mwa ha ha ha...oh man I'm hungry....

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

What's your point? I'm the one saying that the UN is flawed and needs to go. World government needs to get with the times and be formed to address the problems of the world, not the best interests of the major world players from the WWII era.

Does anyone read anymore?

I wasn't making a specifc comment to you I'm just making a point the reason the UN is flawed is because the major players aren't fair dealers. If they were then it would be more effective. But, what major player is going to allow it's country to be dictiacted to by Burma?

The UN can impose sanctions against the US the same way it does everyone else. The problem with the UN is that they are afraid to take a stance, afraid to lose members, afraid of the US saying 'well fuck it, we'll take our ball and go home'. So long as you are afraid of what might happen if you act, you won't act.

This is the point I'm in part trying to make. Yes they can impose sanctions if they wanted to but, this isn't Costa Rica we are talking about here. They feel that the US will take the ball (cash) and go home. Until they are able to make a unified stand about anything atrocities will continue to go on.

 

[pestul]

The UN can impose sanctions against the US the same way it does everyone else. The problem with the UN is that they are afraid to take a stance, afraid to lose members, afraid of the US saying 'well fuck it, we'll take our ball and go home'. So long as you are afraid of what might happen if you act, you won't act.

Or you go to war in Iraq because you're afraid of what might happen if you don't. The US would get a 'coalition of the willing' to invade Canada if they wanted, for no particular reason other than potential economic sanctioning. Of course, Washington would end up being sacked by it's own people if that were the case (this is where J. Titor comes in lol).

 

[Dan]

I wasn't making a specifc comment to you I'm just making a point the reason the UN is flawed is because the major players aren't fair dealers. If they were then it would be more effective. But, what major player is going to allow it's country to be dictiacted to by Burma?

That's a little like asking why California bothers to be part of the United States and be dictated to by Vermont.

 

[DarienA]

The UN can impose sanctions against the US the same way it does everyone else. The problem with the UN is that they are afraid to take a stance, afraid to lose members, afraid of the US saying 'well fuck it, we'll take our ball and go home'. So long as you are afraid of what might happen if you act, you won't act.

There is no chance in our lifetimes that the UN will ever impose sanctions on the US... actually let me ask this... has the UN ever imposed a sanction on any of the permanent members? China, France, Russia, UK, US? I'm leaning towards the answer being no.

EDIT: UN decisions are skewed towards whatever one of the permanent members wants and can convince the other permanent members to go along with IMO.

 

[Hamfam]

I'm not saying that, but I don't believe an effective world body can be maintained based on assumed goodwill and voluntary compliance of its conclusions, suggestions and resolutions.

Gotta love how people see things in black and white. "Oh, he doesn't like this method, well, he must want the exact fucking other extreme, right?" *rolls eyes*

So wait, you think the UN is stupid because it didn't stop the US invading Iraq, but you're also against it ever being able to stop the US doing things it considers illegal?

You say that's going to extremes, well could you please point out the so called in-between? Because I can't think of one.

 

[Goreomedy]

Ham, I'm curious. How exactly would you go about punishing the US? And if you can go into detail on what type of physical force you've hinted at, I'd appreciate it.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

That's a little like asking why California bothers to be part of the United States and be dictated to by Vermont.

Well, things were a mite different than the present situation when California became a state.

So wait, you think the UN is stupid because it didn't stop the US invading Iraq, but you're also against it ever being able to stop the US doing things it considers illegal?

What I'm getting is that he thinks the UN is stupid because it doesn't have a way to stop the US.

 

[pestul]

Ham, I'm curious. How exactly would you go about punishing the US? And if you can go into detail on what type of physical force you've hinted at, I'd appreciate it.

I think the only thing that can punish the US, is itself. I mean, if it gets really really bad.. things have a way of sorting themselves out internally. You hope that it resolves itself peacefully (ie. elections), but it sometimes has to come to other things..

 

[Che]

Every war in the history of human civilization, except the First Gulf War , is illegal because none of them were approved by the UN Security Council.

Damn! They should be legal. I mean war is a great thing how could they stop great leaders like Hitler, Attila, Cesar, Great Alexander from doing what they know best (kill people).

PS. The only reason genious to fight a war is when you're fighting an invader or in some extereme and rare situations (and no it's not the suspicion that your enemy has big bombs). And yes most of the wars during history were "illegal" since every time some spoiled rich King or some lunatic wanted to satisfy his ambition.

 

[Dan]

So wait, you think the UN is stupid because it didn't stop the US invading Iraq, but you're also against it ever being able to stop the US doing things it considers illegal?

You say that's going to extremes, well could you please point out the so called in-between? Because I can't think of one.

I think the UN is worthless because it has no real authority and has no intention of ever using the little that it does have. I think the world needs to strongly move towards real world government. Of course, that'll probably take at least two or three centuries and likely require regional governments as an intermediate, but that's already happening in Europe. There is no quick fix, but my problem is that outside of Europe no one is really moving towards the ultimate goal. The "in-between" is seeking a stronger world body. The next step won't solve anything, but we need to move forward. Doing nothing or accepting defeat isn't helping. Countries don't just become great in one step, why should world government?

No matter how you cut it though, the UN is outdated.

 

[teh_pwn]

I for one don't give a damn what the UN says.

They call the genocide in Sudan ethnic cleansing. F*ck them.