The W
Views: 97845863
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.7.07 1043
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - "Iraq War Illegal" says Annan Register and log in to post!
(653 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 66/104
EXP: 63926
For next: 3798

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3582 days
Last activity: 3580 days
#1 Posted on 16.9.04 0839.42
Reposted on: 16.9.11 0839.43
The question is; why should we care?
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3945/4700
EXP: 21380862
For next: 455800

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 982 days
#2 Posted on 16.9.04 0850.50
Reposted on: 16.9.11 0851.53
How about some context?
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 616/743
EXP: 1368031
For next: 30154

Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 664 days
Last activity: 664 days
#3 Posted on 16.9.04 0853.55
Reposted on: 16.9.11 0854.04
I'd want a link to a story on this one before I lend a random thread title any credence. But I can make the following comments off the top of my head.

What the hell is an "illegal war"? Unless Mr. Annan thinks Kellogg-Briand is still in effect, I don't know how one can say it's illegal.
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 46

Posts: 419/502
EXP: 704160
For next: 7619

Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3216 days
Last activity: 3208 days
#4 Posted on 16.9.04 0900.21
Reposted on: 16.9.11 0907.29
(image removed)
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 374/1040
EXP: 2069822
For next: 27341

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2273 days
Last activity: 743 days
#5 Posted on 16.9.04 0910.50
Reposted on: 16.9.11 0913.09
Here's a link:
Click Here (story.news.yahoo.com)


Seems more like sour grapes, to me. We defied him and the mighty U.N., and now that we're having some trouble over there, he's going to pile on.

(edited by Roy. on 16.9.04 1011)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3946/4700
EXP: 21380862
For next: 455800

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 982 days
#6 Posted on 16.9.04 0934.56
Reposted on: 16.9.11 0935.00
Yikes. What a whiner. Get over it already. Instead of whining about the US getting results, maybe he should worry more about the Sudan...
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 67/104
EXP: 63926
For next: 3798

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3582 days
Last activity: 3580 days
#7 Posted on 16.9.04 1034.22
Reposted on: 16.9.11 1041.51
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Yikes. What a whiner. Get over it already. Instead of whining about the US getting results, maybe he should worry more about the Sudan...


The only positive result I can see from this is that Saddam no longer reigns over Iraq. However, instead of systematic, orderly tyrrany we have chaotic, random tyrrany. Take your pick.

I agree though, this sounds awfully like someone who's used to being treated as a contemporary geopolitical oracle throwing a tantrum because they went ahead and did this without his formal blessing.

If I had my druthers the UN would go the way of the League of Nations, it's nothing but an NWO command/control apparatus.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1233/2693
EXP: 8782145
For next: 206674

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#8 Posted on 16.9.04 1430.53
Reposted on: 16.9.11 1432.08
Has there ever been a "legal" war? Isn't war what happens when diplomacy fails or leaders want something that isn't theirs?
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 981/1084
EXP: 2417598
For next: 44266

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2900 days
#9 Posted on 16.9.04 1438.03
Reposted on: 16.9.11 1438.33
The whole idea of "legal wars" and "rules of war" are very surreal, but have been key to the Western World for some time now, and will probably continue to be important in the future.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3948/4700
EXP: 21380862
For next: 455800

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 982 days
#10 Posted on 16.9.04 1439.02
Reposted on: 16.9.11 1439.15
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Has there ever been a "legal" war?
Wars can, realistically, only be legal or illegal in the context of a revolution versus a sitting government. The Civil War was "illegal" in the sense that they rebelled against the sitting government.

"Illegal" war assumes international law, which is nonexistant.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2962/5402
EXP: 26906662
For next: 225342

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 16.9.04 1444.34
Reposted on: 16.9.11 1445.25
And just remember, our killing innocent Iraqis in order to coerce them into succumbing to our will is liberation by a coalition of the willing, but killing our troops to get them to leave the country is terrorism. Words are fun!
Phantom Lord
Salami
Level: 32

Posts: 136/213
EXP: 188971
For next: 17473

Since: 18.6.04
From: The Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3142 days
Last activity: 2938 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 16.9.04 2242.13
Reposted on: 16.9.11 2242.39
The UN is still bitter that we didn't jump on board that International Court thing. I mean who the hell do we think we are not wanting our own soilders being arrested in other countries and being charged with War Crimes.

We really have some gaul.

Seriously is there really a point to the UN anymore? I mean all they ever do is debate and impose sanctions that have no real impact.

I mean that Oil for Food thing worked out real well...well at least for Saddam and Anan and his kid who ran the thing.

War is always going to be Illegal for someone...especially the side that's losing.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1257/1528
EXP: 4047796
For next: 143352

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2746 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 16.9.04 2259.22
Reposted on: 16.9.11 2259.51
    Originally posted by spf2119
    And just remember, our killing innocent Iraqis in order to coerce them into succumbing to our will is liberation by a coalition of the willing, but killing our troops to get them to leave the country is terrorism. Words are fun!


Definitely, what with the US carpet-bombing Iraqi cities and all. And those innocent, mortar-wielding Iraqis. And the Iranian-backed revolution by regular, innocent Iraqis, like Moqtada al-Sadr. Yep, just fighting for self-determination.

On topic, perhaps this is just a way for Annan to try and damage Bush, thereby helping elect John Kerry, who will undoubtedly be more conciliatory... thus increasing Annan's own power.
Wolfram J. Paulovich
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 505/742
EXP: 1322262
For next: 75923

Since: 11.11.02
From: Fat City, Baby

Since last post: 2872 days
Last activity: 2243 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on 17.9.04 0304.38
Reposted on: 17.9.11 0305.20
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    On topic, perhaps this is just a way for Annan to try and damage Bush, thereby helping elect John Kerry, who will undoubtedly be more conciliatory... thus increasing Annan's own power.



But that explanation fails to take into account The Saucer People and the Reverse Vampires.

(We're through the looking glass here, people.)


On a non-joking note, that seems a long way for Kofi to go for "power" that's negligible at best. Just because he "endorses" Kerry doesn't mean that he can compel Kerry to act the UN's way in the future. Bush has shown how little the UN can do to stop the U.S., and Kofi couldn't do any more to stop Kerry if he wished.

Moreover, Annan's second term is up in December 2006. (Secretaries-General have not, in the past, opted to serve more than two terms.) So even if he jockeyed to put Kerry in the White House, his "control" over him would last less than two years... if he could control him at all. Further, it's highly unlikely that Kofi could predict his successor, let alone designate him; so it's not as if he could transfer Kerry's "debt" to a protege.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1258/1528
EXP: 4047796
For next: 143352

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2746 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 17.9.04 0323.52
Reposted on: 17.9.11 0324.03
    Originally posted by Jeb Tennyson Lund
      Originally posted by PalpatineW
      On topic, perhaps this is just a way for Annan to try and damage Bush, thereby helping elect John Kerry, who will undoubtedly be more conciliatory... thus increasing Annan's own power.



    But that explanation fails to take into account The Saucer People and the Reverse Vampires.

    (We're through the looking glass here, people.)


    On a non-joking note, that seems a long way for Kofi to go for "power" that's negligible at best. Just because he "endorses" Kerry doesn't mean that he can compel Kerry to act the UN's way in the future. Bush has shown how little the UN can do to stop the U.S., and Kofi couldn't do any more to stop Kerry if he wished.

    Moreover, Annan's second term is up in December 2006. (Secretaries-General have not, in the past, opted to serve more than two terms.) So even if he jockeyed to put Kerry in the White House, his "control" over him would last less than two years... if he could control him at all. Further, it's highly unlikely that Kofi could predict his successor, let alone designate him; so it's not as if he could transfer Kerry's "debt" to a protege.


Making a comment to the news media doesn't strike me as going out of one's way at all.

In my estimation, Kofi Annan is a politician and a bureaucrat. It is the natural order of things that such people seek and consolidate power. Why did he seek office in the UN, and how did he get there, if not out of a desire for power? And, beyond that, I assume that Mr. Annan has at least some belief in the power and worth of the United Nations. It's clear from Kerry's own words that he holds the UN in higher regard than Bush does (and most Americans do, if polls are to be believed). Isn't it natural that Kofi Annan would seek to endorse the man most compatible with his goals and values?

It's no different than unions or other organizations endorsing candidates. The UN is, in its own way, an interest group in regards to our coming election. Earlier in this campaign, John Kerry boasted that unnamed foreign leaders were supporting him. And now it's "through the looking glass" to assume that Annan is a Kerry booster?
Jonny_English
Mettwurst
Level: 28

Posts: 99/157
EXP: 121057
For next: 10283

Since: 18.3.04
From: Derby, UK

Since last post: 2768 days
Last activity: 2591 days
#16 Posted on 17.9.04 0525.55
Reposted on: 17.9.11 0525.57
    Originally posted by Phantom Lord
    I mean who the hell do we think we are not wanting our own soldiers being arrested in other countries and being charged with War Crimes.

If soldiers, not just from the US but from any nation, commit war crimes should they not be arrested and tried? Should the soldiers of any nation committing war crimes against US interests not be arrested and tried?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3949/4700
EXP: 21380862
For next: 455800

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 982 days
#17 Posted on 17.9.04 0629.02
Reposted on: 17.9.11 0629.02
    Originally posted by Jonny_English
    If soldiers, not just from the US but from any nation, commit war crimes should they not be arrested and tried? Should the soldiers of any nation committing war crimes against US interests not be arrested and tried?
There is a difference between trying somebody for legitimate war crimes in an established judicial body, and between trumped up charges on the sort of non-crimes the ICC seems to be interested in prosecuting. This is the same court many want to be allowed to try people for "crimes against the environment."
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1235/2693
EXP: 8782145
For next: 206674

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#18 Posted on 17.9.04 0817.53
Reposted on: 17.9.11 0818.38
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Jonny_English
      If soldiers, not just from the US but from any nation, commit war crimes should they not be arrested and tried? Should the soldiers of any nation committing war crimes against US interests not be arrested and tried?
    There is a difference between trying somebody for legitimate war crimes in an established judicial body, and between trumped up charges on the sort of non-crimes the ICC seems to be interested in prosecuting. This is the same court many want to be allowed to try people for "crimes against the environment."


Gimis is correct. We, as a nation, are committed to bringing our troops who commit crimes to justice. The trouble was that if we went along, our soldiers, especially high ranking officers, would be arrested as a form of political harassment.
Phantom Lord
Salami
Level: 32

Posts: 140/213
EXP: 188971
For next: 17473

Since: 18.6.04
From: The Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3142 days
Last activity: 2938 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 19.9.04 0436.08
Reposted on: 19.9.11 0436.10
As it is, people like Henry Kissinger wont go to certain countries because of the International Court.

I remember he said he was in France and they wanted to question him about something from when he was apart of the Nixon administration and he got the hell out of the country before they could get him.

The International Court was designed to bring rules and general's to justice for committing Genocide and other crimes against Humanity.

Only problem is the countries that really hate us (Most of Europe for example) are the ones who charge people with the crimes and we as a nation could never allow any of our Soilders to be put in that kind of Jeopardy.
Wolfram J. Paulovich
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 507/742
EXP: 1322262
For next: 75923

Since: 11.11.02
From: Fat City, Baby

Since last post: 2872 days
Last activity: 2243 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 19.9.04 1551.08
Reposted on: 19.9.11 1556.24
    Originally posted by Phantom Lord
    As it is, people like Henry Kissinger wont go to certain countries because of the International Court.


Is this supposed to be an example of how the International Criminal Court is a bad thing? Henry doesn't go to certain countries for very good reasons, few of which have to do with a politically crusading ICC set out to punish world leaders for just doing things that some people "don't like." In fact, Henry hasn't been going to certain countries for decades now. He's not travelled to Southeast Asia, Chile or Cyprus for many many years. This is due to the fact that a large portion of the people on this earth consider him a war criminal, without rhetorical coaching from the ICC. Moreover, quite a few of those people are Americans.

http://www.harpers.org/RegardingHenryKissinger.html

(edited by Jeb Tennyson Lund on 19.9.04 1656)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: RNC: Liberals plan to ban Bible
Next thread: Nature asks 15 questions of each candidate
Previous thread: Something we didn't know: Bush and Kerry both liars
(653 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - "Iraq War Illegal" says AnnanRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.185 seconds.