Annen Says War without UN backing violates the charter

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by drastik, Mar 10, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #2
    Well that is why I have been saying for years that the UN charter is in itself Unconstitutional.
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #5
    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 :)
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    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!
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #10
    I heard this mentioned on TV, but if we waited for UN security council approval, there would have been more Kosovars killed by Milosevic.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #13
    alex_ant,

    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.
     
  14. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    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:
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    At last, an intelligent point of view. Well said, that man.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #17
    Good post Thanatoast. Good to see that there are still people left (in the US) that can see the big picture...

    *applauding*

    groovebuster
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Location:
    CA, USA
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    The whole point is that neither solution is good: that's what lose-lose means.
     
  21. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    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!
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #23
    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
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #25
    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. Bull****! 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!

    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.

    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.

    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!
     

Share This Page