Support NeoGAF

[alejob]

In Costa Rica, one of the "allies" in the war with Iraq, recently the court ruled that it was ilegal to back up the US on this one.


So yeah, the US is doomed!

Edit: BTW, the only reason why CR was in that list in the first place was because the president said something like "when someone is attacked like that by terrorists it is hard not to stand by them."

He never actually said anything about the war in Iraq but the US government posted Costa Rica on the allied list based on that statement.

 

[Triumph]

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

Come on now. The UN has been useless pretty much from it's inception, it's just gotten more useless with age.

 

[explodet]

 

[KingV]

Well, the UN-scam involving Iraqi Oil from the Ba'athists, which involved... Koffi Annan's son, no less, makes me take his words on this issue with a grain of salt.

 

[MIMIC]

Well, the UN-scam involving Iraqi Oil from the Ba'athists, which involved... Koffi Annan's son, no less, makes me take his words on this issue with a grain of salt.

Why do you need to take "his" words with a grain of salt? He didn't need to say it was illegal.

It IS illegal.

 

[GaimeGuy]

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'.

Ok, last time Germany and Mexico were enemies of the US: World War 2 (Mexico, with the Zimmerman Note, and the potential alliance with Germany, could be considered an enemy from WW2)

Last time Canada was an enemy of the US: During the War of 1812, when Canada was still being occupied by the British and the French, and the British tried fighting the US again.

Last time France was the enemy of the U.S: Never. The only time they've really been hostile towards America was during the appeasements between the War of Independence and the War of 1812.

 

[KingV]

Why do you need to take "his" words with a grain of salt? He didn't need to say it was illegal.

It IS illegal.

Ok, you are right, I said something that doesn't really make sense. What I mean, however, is that I take his motives with a grain of salt in saying this.

 

[Azih]

second guessing motivation is a mug's game and also kinda pointless.

 

[Dan]

Ok, last time Germany and Mexico were enemies of the US: World War 2 (Mexico, with the Zimmerman Note, and the potential alliance with Germany, could be considered an enemy from WW2)

Last time Canada was an enemy of the US: During the War of 1812, when Canada was still being occupied by the British and the French, and the British tried fighting the US again.

Last time France was the enemy of the U.S: Never. The only time they've really been hostile towards America was during the appeasements between the War of Independence and the War of 1812.

Eh, saying any of those countries are enemies of the US now is highly exaggerating things, if not downright false. Those nations are all still conducting trade, maintaining diplomatic relations, and certainly are not aiding forceful action on the other, either directly or indirectly. Are these their most friendly times? Maybe not, but they're certainly not enemies.

 

[GaimeGuy]

That was the point of my post. They ARE not our enemies, and haven't been so for quite a while.

 

[Dan]

Oh, good. My bad. I thought you were being another one of those people greatly exaggerating America's relations with those countries.

 

[seismologist]

Can the UN authorize the use of force to remove the US from Iraq?

 

[retardboy]

UN? UN? Who gives a f*ck about the UN! We're the US! (I'm not being sarcastic)

 

[maharg]

Can the UN authorize the use of force to remove the US from Iraq?

Since the US is on the permanent security council, not really.

 

[teh_pwn]

"Can the UN authorize the use of force to remove the US from Iraq?"

Yeah, they can send a large amount of American forces, along with some troops from a few other nations.

 

[Fresh Prince]

:lol
You're a cocky son of a b!tch, Howard.

Whatever happens Bush is likely to get re-elcted and continue his 'War on Terror' despite what anybody says. Everyone is corrupt. Anarchy is the only answer.

 

[Cooter]

What specific law made the Iraq war illegal?

This is nonsense.

Who's going to convict us?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Specific law?

The UN Charter...specifically article II.

Read it.

Of course, I was screaming this war was illegal before it even started. Fact of the matter is, is that America can't have it both ways...agreeing to the UN charter and proclaiming that it can attack anyone they want if they "feel" threatened(which may or may not be the reality...as in the case of Iraq it wasn't a real threat).

All the US has done is led the rest of the world to attack other nations without going through the UN.

And yes, the UN failed horribly by not taking action against the US with sanctions or whatever else.

The UN on paper works but every fucking nation is too fucking cowardly to stand up to the US...so the UN does nothing.

Even Annan proclaiming this now is joke on him. He's just realizing this now? Morons running the UN. Annan should have grown some balls and spoke up before the war even began.

 

[Cooter]

Oh please.

The UN has zero power and no laws they write will amount to jack shit.

Is this the same UN that has China and Iran on the human rights panel?

Give me a break.

If the UN cannot enforce it's so called "laws" then they me nothing.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

I didn't even realize anyone cared what the United Nations thought anymore.

 

[Shinobi]

The UN has been a joke for years...fuck 'em.

 

[Crag Dweller]

I found a good discussion here- http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/video.jsp about the role of the U.N. in regards to Iraq. Watch this video of the 1st Iraq teach-in QA - http://streaming.yale.edu:8080/ramgen/media/law/iraqteachinlawqa032603.rm and goto 16:13 on the video to hear why one professor(Prof. Kennedy) doesn't think that the U.N has failed and another professor explains the process the the U.S. took to go to war with Iraq with in regards to the U.N.. I would recommend watching the whole thing as well as watching other videos on the page, the Tom Friedman videos in particular are interesting.

 

[Guileless]

If you are offended by the violation of international law, you should be more offended by Saddam than the country that ended his long and unparalleled string of international law violations.

 

[Pimpwerx]

If you are offended by the violation of international law, you should be more offended by Saddam than the country that ended his long and unparalleled string of international law violations.

I would assume the point is that BOTH are wrong, and that there's no reason to let the US off the hook on their guilt b/c Saddam may have been worse. It doesn't take away the fact that the US acted unilaterally on evidence that's now being refuted...by the US. It was an illegal war, but as has been said before, it's way too late to change things now. It won't bring those dead Iraqis back, and it won't refund US tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars. We can't save Social Security, but we can go lampooning around the world fucking things up. PEACE.

 

[xsarien]

If you are offended by the violation of international law, you should be more offended by Saddam than the country that ended his long and unparalleled string of international law violations.

To quote every 1st grade teacher in the country:
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

I'm still waiting, after all this time, for someone to explain to me the constant shifting in reasoning for us going into Iraq, why it made the top of our "To Do" list, and what our long term plan is beyond "keep troops there."

Because it seems to me that what we're doing is becoming the inadvertent poster child for Al-Qaeda recruitment. Our mere presence there is pushing people further towards extremism, the fact that there are some cities in Iraq that even our own, armed troops won't go into is all the proof you need that something's gone terribly awry there.

 

[speedpop]

Heh sounds like League of Nations all over again.. soon the UN will be broken and we'll all be shoved into WW3!

 

[ManDudeChild]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=29&u=/nm/20040917/ts_nm/iraq_usa_powell_dc

"What does it gain anyone? We should all be gathering around the idea of helping the Iraqis, not getting into these kinds of side issues," Powell said in an interview with The Washington Times.

There are no words ...

 

[pestul]

"Side issues" is probably not the best way of describing it. :lol

 

[ManDudeChild]

"Side issues" is probably not the best way of describing it. :lol

That's for sure. To think, Powell used to be respectable.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Goes back to my last post - how much power ought the UN really to have? I'm kinda thankful that the only nominally global political power is actually fairly weak. The last thing anyone wants right now is a global political system, or what a lot of people debating here seem to want: America by any other name, only with limitless power. Wouldn't that be just swell!

The UN does right to be tentative, IMO.

Come on guys, let's push things forward - we're covering a fair amount of ground here. These are significant issues, so let's handle them and each other with respect.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Goes back to my last post - how much power ought the UN really to have? I'm kinda thankful that the only nominally global political power is actually fairly weak. The last thing anyone wants right now is a global political system, or what a lot of people debating here seem to want: America by any other name, only with limitless power. Wouldn't that be just swell!

The UN does right to be tentative, IMO.

Come on guys, let's push things forward - we're covering a fair amount of ground here. These are significant issues, so let's handle them and each other with respect.

I'm the first to agree the U.N. has a lot of issues, and problems it needs to iron out (eg: growing balls, actually agreeing on issues, etc, etc), but I don't think the major issues cancel out what the U.S. did. It sets a horrible precident.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

"Side issues" is probably not the best way of describing it. :lol

I think that what Mr. Powell is saying in that quote is that b*tching about the validity of the war this late in the game, instead of concentrating on the more relevant problems at hand in Iraq and finding ways of dealing with them, is probably not the best idea in the world right now.

 

[Dilbert]

I think that what Mr. Powell is saying in that quote is that b*tching about the validity of the war this late in the game, instead of concentrating on the more relevant problems at hand in Iraq and finding ways of dealing with them, is probably not the best idea in the world right now.

Since when is there a statute of limitations on fucking up?

 

[fortified_concept]

The stupidity in political threads in GAF is dangerously high nowadays. That can mean only one thing: IronKnuckle are you here?

Seriously though don't you feel that what you're saying is something stupid? Like the idiots saying "Who cares about the UN?"

Basically by saying that you show contempt for the rest of the world. Plus you believe with your tiny little brain that the rest 5.5 billion people (at least), who think that what USA did was illegal and immoral, is stupid, and -unlike them- you are right. How much arrogance and stupidity do you need to think like that? Please tell me. What do they feed you there people?

 

[Guileless]

Platitudes aside, the bottom line is that the worst offender of international law in the post-World War II era is no longer breaking international laws. I say we lovers of international law shoud rejoice, even if some members of the UN Security Council were unwilling to enforce the international laws that they themselves voted to impose on Iraq.

All of our breaking-international-law ire should be reserved for those members of the Security Countil who shirked their duty in seeing that international laws were being executed and obeyed.

 

[xsarien]

Platitudes aside, the bottom line is that the worst offender of international law in the post-World War II era is no longer breaking international laws.

Oh, I need to know how Saddam made the top of that list...

 

[Guileless]

He invaded or attacked four different countries, he disobeyed countless UN resolutions, he engaged in every human rights abuse imaginable on a grand scale, he is guilty of war crimes, he looted and destroyed Kuwiat, and he abrogated the treaty ending the First Gulf War.

There have been a lot of unsavory characters, but by most reckonings Saddam would have to be the preeminent violator of international law based on both the volume and intensity of violations. Did you have someone else in mind?

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Since when is there a statute of limitations on fucking up?

Since when did pointing fingers while the house burns down put out a fire?

 

[Dilbert]

There have been a lot of unsavory characters, but by most reckonings Saddam would have to be the preeminent violator of international law based on both the volume and intensity of violations. Did you have someone else in mind?

YOU made the claim, buddy...don't try to turn it around.

I'm expecting a link to a UN site with a numbered list, or there may be consequences.

 

[Dilbert]

Since when did pointing fingers while the house burns down put out a fire?

I'll see your metaphor, and raise you one:

Since when does helping to fight the fire absolve someone of arson?

Yes, Iraq is a big fucking problem right now. That statement is NOT mutually exclusive with the statement that it's Bush's fault that Iraq is a big fucking problem right now.

 

[fortified_concept]

Platitudes aside, the bottom line is that the worst offender of international law in the post-World War II era is no longer breaking international laws. I say we lovers of international law shoud rejoice, even if some members of the UN Security Council were unwilling to enforce the international laws that they themselves voted to impose on Iraq.

All of our breaking-international-law ire should be reserved for those members of the Security Countil who shirked their duty in seeing that international laws were being executed and obeyed.

I WANNA PULL MY EYES OUT! I WANNA PULL MY EYES OUT! I DIDN'T JUST READ THAT! I WANNA PULL MY EYES OUT! IDIOCY ACCEPTANCE LEVEL CRITICAL! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[xsarien]

YOU made the claim, buddy...don't try to turn it around.

I'm expecting a link to a UN site with a numbered list, or there may be consequences.

My sentiments exactly, but, you know, just for kicks:

I'd put Pol Pot ahead of Saddam based on body counts alone. All of the numbers you've been hearing about Saddam's mass graves were gross miscalculations. "Hundrds of thousands" is wrong, "tens of thousands" is much more accurate.

Slobodan Milosovic as well, but that should be obvious. He's not only been charged with genocide, but goes as far as not personally recognizing the court's jurisdiction.

Kim Jong-Il is no saint either, and arguably more dangerous than Saddam ever was even during the peak of his rule. That and the whole "Oh, sorry, we ARE developing nuclear material. What, you didn't get the memo?" thing.

Also Ayatollah Khomeini just because, you know, worst book critic ever.


Saddam pales in comparison to these guys on almost every level. He's the international equivalent of a cat burglar, and we went after him because we're too scared to go after the real criminals.

 

[Phoenix]

Can the UN authorize the use of force to remove the US from Iraq?

That's a very scary thought, but they could take a vote on it - the US would use their member veto or the UK would use theirs. It would all end in nothing happening. The countries with UN veto powers can pretty much prevent progress from happening at the UN.

The best thing that I can think of to correct it is to remove veto powers from all nations. Everything should come down to a 2/3rds majority vote. This will help alleviate some of the foolishness that is happening with these veto stalemates and special interests in the UN. Larger countries are still paying for the votes of smaller countries with aid and such though, so you'll still end up with this high level bribery of countries in the UN. But at least countries will have to 'work' for it as opposed to just showing up for 5 minutes to cast a veto vote and then leave a council meeting.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

I'll see your metaphor, and raise you one:

Since when does helping to fight the fire absolve someone of arson?

Yes, Iraq is a big fucking problem right now. That statement is NOT mutually exclusive with the statement that it's Bush's fault that Iraq is a big fucking problem right now.

Is it arson when the fire resulted incidentally, as a result of good and noble intentions?

And you're right, Iraq is a problem right now. But President Bush is not the sole responsible party for that problem. The decision to go to war was made by him, yes, but it was not made on a whim without counsel despite what some may think.

 

[xsarien]

Is it arson when the fire resulted incidentally, as a result of good and noble intentions?

"Involuntary manslaughter" is on the books for a reason.

 

[Guileless]

I think I adequately explained my position (you know, the part you didn't quote). Here's a link to the Security Council resolutions he violated.

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm

The answer depends on the criteria. Pol Pot killed a lot of people, but he didn't directly violate 17 UN Security Council resolutions or attack four different countries, completely raping one like the Vikings used to. Kim Jong Il is ghoulish, sure, but he hasn't attacked another country since the Korean War. If you define "international law" as the customary laws on armed conflict, human rights, and respect for international institutions, then Saddam is the clear winner. That's the definition of "international law" I'm using.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

The best thing that I can think of to correct it is to remove veto powers from all nations. Everything should come down to a 2/3rds majority vote. This will help alleviate some of the foolishness that is happening with these veto stalemates and special interests in the UN. Larger countries are still paying for the votes of smaller countries with aid and such though, so you'll still end up with this high level bribery of countries in the UN. But at least countries will have to 'work' for it as opposed to just showing up for 5 minutes to cast a veto vote and then leave a council meeting.

While that is an excellent idea. The current power structure would be terribly out of whack without mentioning a particular nation. We would know that a 2/3 vote would have UN moniters in one nation in particular documenting abuses by both sides in it's ongoing conflict.

Something that Veto power has done a good job of preventing.

 

[Phoenix]

Is it arson when the fire resulted incidentally, as a result of good and noble intentions?

And you're right, Iraq is a problem right now. But President Bush is not the sole responsible party for that problem. The decision to go to war was made by him, yes, but it was not made on a whim without counsel despite what some may think.

As much as I hate what happened, this is right. This is an unfortunate result of the system 'working'. To prevent this type of thing from happening in the future (this preventive warfare nonsense) there needs to be laws in place. Whenever the president or any other official makes these kinds of decisions, they do so with lawyers examing the laws to make sure they don't violate any of them.

We need to make it illegal for any president to proactively attack another nation without explicit, tangible, and readily provable evidence of an impending threat to our country. If the WMD were there - fine. The Congressional commitee that oversees these things should have been shown evidence that could be verified (by several sources), authenticated, and not disputed. We should have our own 'ducks in a row' and the burdon of evidence should be on our intelligence community to validate these sorts of things. We aren't a small nation that doesn't have intelligence capabilities for goodness sakes. We can spend the money to get people in place to verify that certain things exist. Heck we could extract the stuff if we really needed to. We should not shift the burdon of evidence elsewhere if we're going to be the country pulling the trigger.

We don't need any more of this 'its better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission' bullshit!

 

[Phoenix]

While that is an excellent idea. The current power structure would be terribly out of whack without mentioning a particular nation. We would know that a 2/3 vote would have UN moniters in one nation in particular documenting abuses by both sides in it's ongoing conflict.

Something that Veto power has done a good job of preventing.

But I think that's fine. If both sides are in the wrong, it should be documented and resolved at the UN. Its better to have an 'orgy' of information on a particular topic than the little tricklings of information from one or two nations. That is inherently dangerous.

Think about this - the one question that many people haven't tried to answer is - where did the forged documents for Iraq come from. We know that our intelligence sources acquired them - so its clear that they were planted by someone who apparently had a vested interest in having us go to war. Did the US plant the evidence for MI6 to find? Perhaps. Was it someone else that wanted to see us in the region? Perhaps.

After all of this started, Russia was saying that they had some evidence of WMD in Iraq. Israel said that they provided some intel as well. All of this should have been joined together by all of the countries to come up with the 'bigger' picture. If all of these countries said that there was WMD in Iraq and to date no significant quantities have been found there are only two possibilities:

1) The weapons ARE somewhere else in the world and no one can account for them

2) Someone out there is playing ALL of us by giving is fubar'd intel

 

[Che]

1) The weapons ARE somewhere else in the world and no one can account for them

2) Someone out there is playing ALL of us by giving is fubar'd intel

:lol That's all the possibilities you could find? Think harder.