Kofi Annan: Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter

[Timber Loftis]

Memnoch, you're having waaaay too much fun.

[Ronn_Bman]

Memnoch, I Memnoch the way you Memnoch all of us Memnochers.

Memnoch!

[Gab]

So much denial and UN bashing about the Iraq war, it disgusts me to no end :shake:. The resolutions and agreement don't matter, the United Nations didn't give approval for the invasion and is there for illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I was glad when Saddam was overthrown. However, with violence and death happening everyday, I'm now very pessimistic about Iraq. With intelligence officials predicting best possible outcome is tenous stability and worst is a civil war, Iraq has been a disaster. HOW CAN YOU HAVE ELECTIONS IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE CONTROL OVER DOZENS OF CITIES OR EVEN PARTS OF BAGHDAD??!

[ 09-18-2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Aerich]

Well, we walk a shaky line here; international consensus vs. a state's right to conduct itself how it sees fit.

I'm not sure that just because the UN didn't give approval for the invasion that makes it illegal - I'm not up on my international law and all the ins and outs of UN membership.

And let's face it, the UN hasn't done a wonderful job of dealing with crises or perceived crises lately - Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Sudan... although East Timor wasn't a total disaster. Maybe it needs shaking up a bit; right now we seem rather stuck between quick-on-the-trigg -um, invasion American unilateralism (although Afghanistan was not) and an uncommitted UN, at least on military intervention (humanitarian is another issue). A happy medium would be nice. I'd like to see a small on-call task force for intervention; so far, however, that has posed an insurmountable political problem. (Who controls it, who can veto, where do the troops come from, etc.)

You make a good point, Gab, and I agree with you about the potential difficulties with "free" elections in Iraq, but can you lay off the full sentence of caps? It's like tossing lighted matches at gunpowder.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Gab: the United Nations didn't give approval for the invasion and is there for illegal.

It is not UN bashing to say that the UN did, in fact, authorize force against Iraq. The authorization for any and all action deemed necessary was only lifted temporarily and conditionally in '91, and was never withdrawn. Saddam did not meet the requirements, failing again and again, but despite a decade plus of searching for a political solution, the authorization of force remained in effect.

It is hard to argue that UN resolutions have any significance when people and nations pick and choose those they like and ignore or discount the others. Yes, the US has played the 'pick and chose game' over the years, as has every other nation, and as we in this forum continue to do. This is the problem with the UN. Not that it is a bad idea, but that everyone, and I mean everyone, is only interested in and supportive of what the UN does or tries to do when they agree with it. The rest we ignore or discount.

The UN did not give a second authorization of force, although some would say it did, but it is a moot point because another authorization was unnecessary as the original was still in place. The only reason a second authorization was ever sought was political.

I can freely admit that the US action against Iraq was completely against the spirit of the post Gulf War resolutions which worked towards a political solution to the Iraqi problem, but that does not make it illegal. It was not in the spirit of the resolutions and was not in the spirit of international cooperation. It has even been pointed out that the invasion may have been unethical and immoral, but the one thing it was not, was illegal. The legality may have been a loophole, but that loophole exists, and makes the cries of illegality untrue.