PDA

View Full Version : Annen Says War without UN backing violates the charter


drastik
Mar 10, 2003, 04:22 PM
Annan Warns Against War Without U.N. Approval
By REUTERS


Filed at 3:05 p.m. ET

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Washington on Monday that -- without U.N. Security Council backing -- a war to disarm Iraq would be short on legitimacy and violate the world body's charter.

Annan pleaded for unity ahead of a Security Council vote due this week on a new draft resolution authorizing war against Iraq. The United Nations had to exhaust every avenue to achieve disarmament by peaceful means before resorting to war, he said.

Of course, he's asolutely right, the US Disregaurding the Security Council does violate the Charter, but will the government care? IT is certianly within our sovergnty to do what we want and to hell with the UN. However, we did agree to abide by the Charter, and violating it puts us on the same level of Iraq, North Korea, everyone else in violation of UN rule.

At the very least its hypocritical as we expect the rest of the world to follow UN rules. At the worst is unethical.

My guess is, this thread gets ugly.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 04:30 PM
Well that is why I have been saying for years that the UN charter is in itself Unconstitutional.

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 04:34 PM
If France would pull its head out of its ass we would not have an issue. I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of the crap coming from that country. If the US startign this war without the resolution truely violates the UN charter (which I'm not sure if it really does) then I'd have to say **** the UN at this point, or atleast the security council. If the council proves to be useless, then what choice do we have. Can we really accept letting the world go to hell in a hand basket because France is worried about losing their shady deals with Saddam. In this instance the UN and the security council are not doing the job they were initially intended to do. Instead the council is standing in the way of any effective results. Do you think possibly Saddam knew the French would never go through with it, and so he felt protected by their selfishness? He knew that France would not follow through with resolution 1441, which is why he has not cooperated. Maybe if the security council did its job, and therfore was something to be feared by Saddam, we would not have this issue at all. I think France's motives should be deeply scrutinized here. There should be an inspection into the dealings of France and Iraq. France's seat on the security council should be in question. If they are using the council to manipulate the wold so that their corrupt dealings stand, they do not deserve their seat on the council.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 04:40 PM
Screw Annen and his fellow puppets, if these people are blind to Saddam so be it. We and the Brits are not. I for one am glad that England has a man like Tony Blair and not some weasel like chiroc. nothing new from the french. The U.N. has almost made itself meaningless when it cant stand up to a killer tyrant Like Saddam without the U.S. and Britain ramming it down their throats. What a bunch of cowardly fools. What good is the U.N. when it cant enforce its own 17 and counting resolutions.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
If the US startign this war without the resolution truely violates the UN charter (which I'm not sure if it really does) then I'd have to say **** the UN at this point, or atleast the security council.

Actually it does. It forbaes member nations from engaging in offensive style war. Only in defensive structure does it give you the right to defend yourself.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Don't you think :)

macfan
Mar 10, 2003, 05:06 PM
One might argue that it violates the charter, but the Security Council has already apporved this military action when it voted to authorize force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. That war has never ended. Saddam has not complied with the terms of the cease-fire, thus the cease-fire can cease and the fire can resume. (that is, if you want to be technical about such things).

The Secretary General also protested the 1998 action against Iraq taken by President Clinton.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 05:13 PM
Sorry fellas,the President of the United States is Sworn to defend the constitution. Not the damn UN and its wobbly cowards that side with the bad guys. I hope we will allways keep it this way after seeing how the U.N has not acted upon a killer Liar like Saddam. I dont want to ever see our freedom based on what or what these fools dont do. The fact is that Iraq has ignored the U.N. well it wont ignore the U.S. Even today more announcements on how Iraq didnt declare these newer weapons. Drones and bombs capable of dropping chemical and bio weapons that the Iraqi's have been lying about.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Sorry fellas,the President of the United States is Sworn to defend the constitution. Not the damn UN and its wobbly cowards that side with the bad guys. I hope we will allways keep it this way after seeing how the U.N has not acted upon a killer Liar like Saddam. I dont want to ever see our freedom based on what or what these fools dont do. The fact is that Iraq has ignored the U.N. well it wont ignore the U.S. Even today more announcements on how Iraq didnt declare these newer weapons. Drones and bombs capable of dropping chemical and bio weapons that the Iraqi's have been lying about.

Exactly! That is the point that I have been trying to make for a long time now.

Also, macfan, you are dead on solid right!

cubist
Mar 10, 2003, 07:08 PM
Not to mention there are many wars going on all over without UN approval... The French hypocrites themselves are fighting in Cote d'Ivoire without any UN approval.

pivo6
Mar 10, 2003, 07:22 PM
I heard this mentioned on TV, but if we waited for UN security council approval, there would have been more Kosovars killed by Milosevic.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 10, 2003, 07:29 PM
France is ran by a bunch of cowards that never learned the lessons that hitler should have taught them. over and over Saddam has lied and deceived, over and over it said we didnt have this, we dont have that only to be proven that these were lies. wether looking at nuclear ambitions, rockets that go further then they are supposed to, chemicals and bios that have never been turned over, weapons that were not declared such as these drones and bombs that can disperse chemicals and biological agents. And yet France and the Liberal Democrats here in America ignore this. I have almost come to a conclusion in my mind never to buy a product made in France nor ever vote again for the democratic party. If being a Democrat is more important then being a American then i choose being an American. Maybe Liberterian or Republican but not lets hand over our Rights to some anti American U.N. body that would be ran by communist and dictators if not For Free loving Americans that gave their lives for Freedom for us as well as others.

alex_ant
Mar 10, 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
France is ran by a bunch of cowards that never learned the lessons that hitler should have taught them. over and over Saddam has lied and deceived, over and over it said we didnt have this, we dont have that only to be proven that these were lies. wether looking at nuclear ambitions, rockets that go further then they are supposed to, chemicals and bios that have never been turned over, weapons that were not declared such as these drones and bombs that can disperse chemicals and biological agents. And yet France and the Liberal Democrats here in America ignore this. I have almost come to a conclusion in my mind never to buy a product made in France nor ever vote again for the democratic party. If being a Democrat is more important then being a American then i choose being an American. Maybe Liberterian or Republican but not lets hand over our Rights to some anti American U.N. body that would be ran by communist and dictators if not For Free loving Americans that gave their lives for Freedom for us as well as others.
Here's a napkin to wipe the froth off your chin.

I guess after the 2.2 million people they lost in the first two World Wars, cowards are all France has left.

macfan
Mar 10, 2003, 09:09 PM
alex_ant,

I guess after the 2.2 million people they lost in the first two World Wars, cowards are all France has left.

Darwinian evolution and the evidence to date on Iraq would certainly lead one to consider this as a strong possibility!

They didn't learn the same lessons from Hitler that the British and Americans did. We learned not to appease dictator. They learned that everything would be ok is you just let them kill some Jews.

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
France is ran by a bunch of cowards...... I have almost come to a conclusion in my mind never to buy a product made in France nor ever vote again for the democratic party. If being a Democrat is more important then being a American then i choose being an American. Maybe Liberterian or Republican but not lets hand over our Rights to some anti American U.N. body that would be ran by communist and dictators if not For Free loving Americans that gave their lives for Freedom for us as well as others.

Did you leave your brain somewhere? Are you looking for a job in the Bush team? Is France going to care what you think? Is this a considered analysis? Geez....:confused:

Thanatoast
Mar 10, 2003, 09:21 PM
The charter was written the way it was because after WWII it was generally agreed that countries shouldn't go around starting wars with eachother, and by golly, here was a new international organization that everyone belonged to that could work toward resolving differences peacefully. Now personally I think that making it a rule that one shouldn't start wars is a good one, in fact, a large portion of the world agrees with me. I fully realize that the authority to declare war is vested by the Constitution in the congress, but congress has already abdicated this responsibility by allowing the president to run rampant with US forces across the face of the planet. But I suppose a homegrown war-weasel is preferable to a foriegn peace-monkey, in your opinions.

The security council isn't useless, it's balking at what it sees as an agressive war led by the US on questionable evidence. Shouldn't they be allowed to have resvervations about supporting a huge military action that may or may not make anyone truly "safer"? It's only "useless" in the sense that it's not kowtowing to our demands.

As for the president being sworn to defend the Constitution, then why did he sign the Patriot Act? Why is his administration backing Patriot II? There are plenty of things in those bills much more chilling to constitutional rights than UN pacifism. If you guys really want to defend what it means to be an American you should stop concentrating on Saddam and turn your attention to what's going on in your own legislature.

I think the biggest threat the French see at the moment is the US. Once we throw aside international law, what's to stop us from doing anything we want, anywhere, anytime? If I were the leader of another nation I'd be a little nervous about the US as well. Just because you guys trust Bush with ...ok, I'm at a loss for words here. The power to do anything. Think about it. He's got the most advanced military and intelligence network in the world, he's got no major opponents to keep the balance and him in check. He's about to throw aside fifty years worth of international conventions and just do whatever he pleases. Not to go all black helicopters on you guys, but do you trust ANYONE with that kind of power? Much less "Dubya"?

Quite frankly, this whole mess will have no good resolution. It's lose-lose at this point. The UN is trying for the peaceful solution. Bush is pushing the "blow 'em all to hell" solution. Whether one is more effective than the other remains to be seen.

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 09:25 PM
At last, an intelligent point of view. Well said, that man.

groovebuster
Mar 10, 2003, 09:29 PM
Good post Thanatoast. Good to see that there are still people left (in the US) that can see the big picture...

*applauding*

groovebuster

BrittasMac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:03 PM
The UN should be regulated to be an international forum. The UN is a brilliant concept however it cannot be viewed as a type of world government. The root of the issue is that the United States is the sole remaining superpower and that threatens the international community. If they can demonstrate that the UN dictates American foreign policy then they believe the UN itself will be a superpower. The United States on the other hand is hellbent on showing the world they are a soverign nation. You have two sides that cannot possibly concede to each other and in the end America will show that they are independent.

It's a rather absurd scenario when you get right down to it.

leprechaunG4
Mar 10, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by skunk
At last, an intelligent point of view. Well said, that man.
A post is only intelligent if it agrees with you????

Thanatost - It is at this point pretty obvious France is not anywher near as valiant as you try to make them out to be. The security council is not balking at an over aggressive war, it is having it's hands tied by geedy governments that are abusing current sanctions and don't wish to lose their sleazy ties. France is not worried about letting America have too much power, please that's a pathetic argument. Show me facts.

You also claim the UN is goign for peaceful solutions, tell me what these solutions are. Please give me the peaceful solution that works, and keep doing what we are doign THAT DOESN'T WORK does not count as a solution.

skunk
Mar 10, 2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
You also claim the UN is goign for peaceful solutions, tell me what these solutions are. Please give me the peaceful solution that works, and keep doing what we are doign THAT DOESN'T WORK does not count as a solution.

The whole point is that neither solution is good: that's what lose-lose means.

IJ Reilly
Mar 10, 2003, 10:23 PM
Another tip 'o the cap to Thanatoast. I'm getting tired of arguing. You take over for a while, okay?

Truly, the demonizing of the French is quite something. Sure, they are the US's most loyal opposition in the Security Council at the moment (and what more reason to you need to make them an object of scorn?), but I've noticed that most people fail to actually understand the French stance before they decide to hate the French.

Chirac repeated again today -- France believes that if a preemptive war is to be waged, it should not be the decision of one country to wage it. Pretty much what Kofi Annan said too. Wow, what a radical viewpoint. If feel an embolism coming on just thinking about it!

Kid Red
Mar 10, 2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by groovebuster
Good post Thanatoast. Good to see that there are still people left (in the US) that can see the big picture...

*applauding*

groovebuster

Hear hear. Saddam is an ass, a dictator and a murder, but he's a small time wanna be punk. He's no threat to anyone. His army lasted what, a whole 3 days in the gulf war? That's only because it took our troops that long to get to all those surrendering soldiers. I'm all for military might, beating down the bad guy but I just don't see the threat. He has a few cluster bombs, ok only to drop on his own people. I have yet to see any evidence that he has any means in which to deliver his antique weapons. He's got a few missles that can reach 90 miles, ok, woopdi doo. I'm actually surprised we are even messing with Saddam as it's kinda unfair. We are like Mike Tyson in a elentary school yard. It's so unfair that it's brow raising just thinking about how lopsided the victory would be.

It's just Bush doing what his grumpy ole dad couldn't do. Bush trying to divert attention from his gem of economical triumphs. His ridiculous tax cut plan at the heals of war. His historical deficit. He's just flexing muscle and I can't believe he will tarnish the US's image with the rest of the world for who knows how long. I can only hope if we do go to war that the next democratic predsident can fix the mess Bush will leave this country in.

War? Threat to the world? Threat to the US? N. Korea. That's who we need to pay a visit to. If Bush wants a war I'm sure the UN would approve bombing N Korea. Oh wait, N Korea doesn't have oil feilds, my bad.

groovebuster
Mar 10, 2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
A post is only intelligent if it agrees with you????

Sometimes there is something like a correlation on that matter! ;)

Are you sure that you are never thinking that someone who is not sharing your point of view is kind of dumb because of ignoring the facts that are so obvious to yourself?

I think that's just natural so don't point with your finger at him... ;)

groovebuster

alex_ant
Mar 10, 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
It's just Bush doing what his grumpy ole dad couldn't do. Bush trying to divert attention from his gem of economical triumphs. His ridiculous tax cut plan at the heals of war. His historical deficit. He's just flexing muscle and I can't believe he will tarnish the US's image with the rest of the world for who knows how long. I can only hope if we do go to war that the next democratic predsident can fix the mess Bush will leave this country in.

War? Threat to the world? Threat to the US? N. Korea. That's who we need to pay a visit to. If Bush wants a war I'm sure the UN would approve bombing N Korea. Oh wait, N Korea doesn't have oil feilds, my bad.
I agree with some of this, but I must say that I actually agree with Bush's do-nothing policy toward NK. Reason being: As a leftist pinko, communist dictators fill my heart with warmth. Whenever I think of Dear Leader, I feel like hugging him! And a tree.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Hear hear. Saddam is an ass, a dictator and a murder, but he's a small time wanna be punk. He's no threat to anyone. His army lasted what, a whole 3 days in the gulf war? That's only because it took our troops that long to get to all those surrendering soldiers. I'm all for military might, beating down the bad guy but I just don't see the threat. He has a few cluster bombs, ok only to drop on his own people. I have yet to see any evidence that he has any means in which to deliver his antique weapons. He's got a few missles that can reach 90 miles, ok, woopdi doo. I'm actually surprised we are even messing with Saddam as it's kinda unfair. We are like Mike Tyson in a elentary school yard. It's so unfair that it's brow raising just thinking about how lopsided the victory would be.

Dear lord I am sick of this crap. His army lasted 120 hours on land before surrender. We bombed for quite a while 2 weeks in fact before that. He has a few cluster bombs. ************! Over 30,000 chemical munitions! Do you know what that would do! Only to drop on his own people, what like that is ok! Antique weapons. Dude are you on crack! Do you know what VX gas will do to you? How about Botulism Toxin? Anthrax? He has over 10,000 liters of Anthrax. How about the small pox that has been reportedly stored in the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Bagdad. Yea, we will win the war, but he is bringing it!


It's just Bush doing what his grumpy ole dad couldn't do.

Sorry for the insult, but that is the most uneducated piece of worthless crap that I have ever heard! Even Alan Colmes says that people that believe that are ignorant. Well, now we have conformation from a leading liberal in the media.


Bush trying to divert attention from his gem of economical triumphs. His ridiculous tax cut plan at the heals of war. His historical deficit. He's just flexing muscle and I can't believe he will tarnish the US's image with the rest of the world for who knows how long. I can only hope if we do go to war that the next democratic predsident can fix the mess Bush will leave this country in.

You really are smart aren't you. Well, when did the recession start then geinus? What caused the deficit? The tax cuts? Or the problems from 9/11. Democrat or republican, it would not matter, the economy was primed for a letdown. Especially after the over inflation of the markets in the 90's. Plus there is an economic cycle to the world. Study that, you may learn something.


War? Threat to the world? Threat to the US? N. Korea. That's who we need to pay a visit to. If Bush wants a war I'm sure the UN would approve bombing N Korea. Oh wait, N Korea doesn't have oil feilds, my bad.

Yea, Iraq does. France has over 60Billion invested in those wells. US, nearly nothing. I wonder if that is why France doesn't want this war. This isn't about oil, this is about removing a man from power that has not done what the cease-fire of 91 has ordered him to do. 12 year, 17 resolution, and he is still in material breach. Obviously you don't remember the Gulf war. Remember he invaded Kuwait. Killed, raped, and tortured people? Remember? How about the Kurds? How about his definance of the UN? You would be all for us going into N. Korea I take it? That is just stupid. The country is in a postion that it has no natural resources, and has no barganing tool other than a potenial small number of Nukes. Notice that everyone says that we have to go to the UN over Iraq, but must go alone with N. Korea. HIPPOCRITES!

e-coli
Mar 10, 2003, 10:51 PM
I have yet to hear a single compelling argument for war in Iraq at this time.

alex_ant
Mar 10, 2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
HIPPOCRITES!
What does Hippocrates have to do with this?

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
What does Hippocrates have to do with this?

Alex, you are such a smartass you know that. Typing so fast, that a mistake was made :D

e-coli
Mar 10, 2003, 11:01 PM
Even though you're on my ignore list, I simply must respond to your naiveté:

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
...has not acted upon a killer...

umm....you mean like the thousands of innocent people George Bush is going to put to death by ordering military action?

...Liar like Saddam.

umm...you mean like spreading lies and fabricating documents to support your case? (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2346364) (I could post more links similar to this one, but won't).

Don't be so naive.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by e-coli
Even though you're on my ignore list, I simply must respond to your naiveté:
umm....you mean like the thousands of innocent people George Bush is going to put to death by ordering military action?

umm...you mean like spreading lies and fabricating documents to support your case? (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2346364) (I could post more links similar to this one, but won't).

Don't be so naive.

whooo Big man stepping in. Look, sorry for this getting out of hand. You care about the innocent people that will ACCIDENTALLY BE KILLED in the war, but not those that ARE TARGETED BY A DICTATOR.

Follow the logic and you will feel the pain that I am feeling by reading your post.

beatle888
Mar 11, 2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Not the damn UN and its wobbly cowards that side with the bad guys.


um, their cowards cause they dont want to kill thousands of innocent civilians which war has a tendancy of doing?

damn, with your attitude you better be in the military or have a damn good reason your ass isnt over there with the rest of the people putting their lives on the line.

lmalave
Mar 11, 2003, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by pivo6
I heard this mentioned on TV, but if we waited for UN security council approval, there would have been more Kosovars killed by Milosevic.

Exactly. Clinton went ahead and led a NATO attack in Kosovo without UN approval, and there were a few objections (some called it Madeleine Albright's war because she is of Yugoslavian descent), but the world basically went along with it.

The difference is that the Bush administration has been an unmitigated diplomatic disaster. From Day 1 Bush has done nothing but antagonize the rest of the world. Just as the 20th was the "American Century", the 21st is turning out to be the "Anti-American Century" courtesy of Bush.

Face it, folks: almost every previous president, from Washington to Clinton, has successfully gained the admiration of the world and a special place for the U.S. in the hearts of freedom-loving people everywhere. Bush is somehow managing to unravel a couple hundred years of history in a few disastrous years.

Mark my words: Bush will go down in history as a modern-day Emperor Nero, a man who by his sheer incompetence brings down his mighty empire.

trebblekicked
Mar 11, 2003, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by lmalave
Just as the 20th was the "American Century", the 21st is turning out to be the "Anti-American Century" courtesy of Bush.

i really do agree with this. this is the real danger facing this nation; one that cannot be stared down by military or economic power.

Originally posted by lmalave
Face it, folks: almost every previous president, from Washington to Clinton, has successfully gained the admiration of the world and a special place for the U.S. in the hearts of freedom-loving people everywhere. Bush is somehow managing to unravel a couple hundred years of history in a few disastrous years.

sorry, but this is a pretty bad generalization. for example, anti-american sentiment in the middle east is at the root of the issue, and that has been festering since the inception of israel. regardless of who was in power, there always was an undercurrent of hate towards american government in the middle east. Since no president (aside from maybe jimmy carter) made the middle east a true priority, the sentiment grew regardless of what party was in power. I would say that the palestinian people are freedom loving. Your point seems to revolve around bush's lack of foreign policy power. i don't think i can argue with that. where he should have made concessions, he pushed. where he should have backed down, he pushed harder. where he should have kept quiet, he shot from the hip. he managed to insult several members of the UN by assuming that the US's evidence would be enough. He expected no debate, and when debate came, the us did not have the right people lined up to swing the vote in it's favor.

Originally posted by lmalave
Mark my words: Bush will go down in history as a modern-day Emperor Nero, a man who by his sheer incompetence brings down his mighty empire.

for the good of my country, i should hope we could be humbled without such drastic failure. regardless, i hope that americans, as members of a global comunity, learn from this experience and come to expect more from our leaders in terms of international dilpomacy skills.

i know you posted with emotion, and you sound very frustrated with the current situation. i, and at least 12 million other people are too. but don't let that frustration get in the way of the facts.:)

trebblekicked
Mar 11, 2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
whooo Big man stepping in. Look, sorry for this getting out of hand. You care about the innocent people that will ACCIDENTALLY BE KILLED in the war, but not those that ARE TARGETED BY A DICTATOR.

Follow the logic and you will feel the pain that I am feeling by reading your post.

maybe i'm missing the point (and i don't mean for this to sound like an attack) but i don't think that how or by whom the innocents are killed will matter much to them or those who knew them. Maybe we can attatch some kind of heroic sentiment to those "civilian casualties", but i seriously doubt any of them will.

spony
Mar 11, 2003, 04:29 AM
February 27, 2003

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue.

The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.


John Brady Kiesling

e-coli
Mar 11, 2003, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
maybe i'm missing the point (and i don't mean for this to sound like an attack) but i don't think that how or by whom the innocents are killed will matter much to them or those who knew them. Maybe we can attatch some kind of heroic sentiment to those "civilian casualties", but i seriously doubt any of them will.

yes, exactly my point. Justify it any way you want, but people are going to die.

and the President doesn't accidentally declare war. It's a deliberate act with the death of innocents being a direct result. And it's even less justifiable when the Presidential administration has gone to such great illegal lengths (http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html) in their attempt to get their actions approved.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by spony
February 27, 2003

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation



Blah, Blah Blah. So what. One Diplomat disagrees and this is news! Who cares?

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by e-coli
yes, exactly my point. Justify it any way you want, but people are going to die.

and the President doesn't accidentally declare war. It's a deliberate act with the death of innocents being a direct result. And it's even less justifiable when the Presidential administration has gone to such great illegal lengths (http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html) in their attempt to get their actions approved.

HA! I am truely laughing right now. Look. War sucks, but sometime it is neccessary. That is a fact. Yes, innocent people died when we went into Germany to get Hitler out. Would have rather us not have gone? Same thing here, except you choose not to see the evidence for some reason.

As for the dirty tricks. Dude get a life! That is part of how the world works. We spy on them, they spy on us. That is the way it works! Oh, shame on us for bugging phones on UN members, but SADDAM CAN BUG PHONES TO AVOID DETECTION OF HIS WMDS! That is rich.

lmalave
Mar 11, 2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by trebblekicked

sorry, but this is a pretty bad generalization. for example, anti-american sentiment in the middle east is at the root of the issue, and that has been festering since the inception of israel. regardless of who was in power, there always was an undercurrent of hate towards american government in the middle east.

You miss my point. Of course we've been hated by the Middle East. Earlier this century we were hated by Communists and Fascists. We've always had strategic and ideological rivals. The difference this time around is the shocking degree to which we've lost moral leadership in the eyes of even our allies and the rest of the "free" world.

Despite Rumsfeld's ranting about Old vs. New Europe, the fact is most democratic nations in the world now view the U.S. as a threat to peace and security. That is a shocking turnaround from our position throughout most of the 20th century. In the 20th century almost all our military involvements were seen as principled. Even with less popular wars like Vietnam, the world still believed that we were taking a principled stand for the greater good. With this war Europe, Asia, etc. are not so sure, since our goverment can't seem to get its story straight about the motivation for this war.

The stated doctrine of pre-emption, combined with this administration's stated goal to remain the world's sole superpower and blatant disregard for world opinion, have profoundly unsettled the world.

Any good business person or good leader knows that even if you are powerful, you don't abuse that power and you make sure that your business partners, customers, suppliers, etc. feel like they are treated well. Even if you got the better part of a negotiation, you don't rub it in their face, you make them feel like they also got a good deal. It doesn't surprise me at all that Bush has been a massive failure at every business venture he's tried, if he treated his business partners the way he's treating our allies now....

beatle888
Mar 11, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
HA! I am truely laughing right now. Look. War sucks, but sometime it is neccessary. That is a fact. Yes, innocent people died when we went into Germany to get Hitler out. Would have rather us not have gone? Same thing here, except you choose not to see the evidence for some reason.

As for the dirty tricks. Dude get a life! That is part of how the world works. We spy on them, they spy on us. That is the way it works! Oh, shame on us for bugging phones on UN members, but SADDAM CAN BUG PHONES TO AVOID DETECTION OF HIS WMDS! That is rich.


this is NOT like hitler for 1. and saying that saddam is doing it so why cant we is asinine. you dont know much about the war with germany, its obvious by your reference to how innocent civilians died and that its acceptable. i dont know that much about it either but i do know that we were bombing them when it wasnt even necessary anymore. just ask groove buster.

just because we were barbaric in the past. and sloppy with our destruction doesnt mean we should continue that way.

trebblekicked
Mar 11, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
The stated doctrine of pre-emption, combined with this administration's stated goal to remain the world's sole superpower and blatant disregard for world opinion, have profoundly unsettled the world.


i agree. and bush's comments about the irrelevance of the largest coordinated protest in human history certainly didn't help his image any.
i agreed with your other points, BTW, i just wanted to clarify some of it in a friendly way. sorry.

trebblekicked
Mar 11, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Blah, Blah Blah. So what. One Diplomat disagrees and this is news! Who cares?

a man who works for our nation, and who's life's work was spreading the good inherit in american values can no longer do his job in good conscience. because of the way this administration is conducting itslef. you don't see this as a probelm? There is more to this situation that the "terrorist threat" posed by saddam hussein. much more. like has been said other times in this thread, the us may blow it's diplomatic nest egg just to oust a leader who can't make an aggressive move without the world knowing.

Backtothemac
Mar 11, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
this is NOT like hitler for 1. and saying that saddam is doing it so why cant we is asinine. you dont know much about the war with germany, its obvious by your reference to how innocent civilians died and that its acceptable. i dont know that much about it either but i do know that we were bombing them when it wasnt even necessary anymore. just ask groove buster.

just because we were barbaric in the past. and sloppy with our destruction doesnt mean we should continue that way.

Um, actually yes it is like Hitler. Saddam has slaughtered 1.5 million people. 1.5 million! Second, he invaded a neighboring country, had his ass handed to him, and part of the cease fire was to disarm. He has not, so the cease fire is void. Third. Yes, I do know a lot about the war. I have a degree in Military History from the University of Alabama, as well as one in Political Science, with a focus on terrorism and counter terror. You have to understand that the technology of the time did not allow for pinpoint bombing, and that is my point. We will minimize casualties of civilians.

IJ Reilly
Mar 11, 2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
a man who works for our nation, and who's life's work was spreading the good inherit in american values can no longer do his job in good conscience. because of the way this administration is conducting itslef. you don't see this as a probelm? There is more to this situation that the "terrorist threat" posed by saddam hussein. much more. like has been said other times in this thread, the us may blow it's diplomatic nest egg just to oust a leader who can't make an aggressive move without the world knowing.

So what, he's just a liberalmediademocratsaddamhugger.

You see guys, I'm learning!

Backtothemac
Mar 12, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So what, he's just a liberalmediademocratsaddamhugger.

You see guys, I'm learning!

Although I don't agree with you on much, that was damn funny :)