Iraq from a different perspective

I'm just kidding. To be fair England has 'hoods' and drugs play a bit part in the crime that persists in them. I would not doubt drugs play a big part in the violence in the US - especially in 'the hoods' - whatever the ethnicity - Because their are hundreds of gangs that are in the US - who run along ethnicity colours creeds a whole myriad of differing reasons. All boiling down [pardon the pun] to the sale the distribution and consumption of drugs.

I agree with Relayer in generalising - it depends on which 'hood' you are in.

I just kid about 'boyz in the hood' because that is a line from that.
Fact is black ghetto angst was big back then - they seemingly forgot about the other 'hoods' that were NOT black dominated- shooting each other dead every single day of the year. I guess there have been and where less mainstream films dealing with other 'hoods' with other ethnicities and mixed ethnicities.

And NO i'm not a warmonger - go read the thread i aint explaining myself again.

 

I know - Total (turnout 79.6 %) 12,396,631
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iraq#Political_parties_and_elections

 

If realplayer really lived in the hood he's know dam well that crack is the reason for black on black violence..either he's lying or he's lying..

 

..........................................................................................................

Poor Kofi: the war has cost his son all of those Oil-for-Food bribes.
He left office under a cloud due to the corruption.

Perhaps if he took the sanctions seriously in the first place then
bush would have not been given an excuse to fix things.

Kofi could have been more assertive in mediatating between Isreal and Lebanonn
over prisoner exchange to head off the summer 2006 conflict.

 

I would have thought that Iraqi's could have joined together to establish a republican goverment.
Mesopotania is the cradle of civilization.
They deserve better than Saddam, Uday and Quisay Hussein.
Very disapointing.
This Shia - Sunni schism is thier un-doing not bush.
The schism is hundreds of years old.
Seems they hate each other way more than Westerners.
Shame, the blowing up of the Golden Mosque of Samarra one year ago. (Shia)

The Pentagon boys did not forsee this ?

 

I belive that many Sunni boycotted the election. Too bad.

 

They can't see their hand in front of their face. They're back in the WWII era popping off remarks such as 'axis of evil'; thinking they can scare groups into submission with shock and awe bombs; releasing reports with classified info in 'password-protected' PDF files that an average person cracked with shareware (the Italian journalist shooting incident). They're 60 years behind the technology and tactics that groups today are using to wage unconventional battles. In light of all that, they have the nerve to use phrases such as 'old Europe'.

.

 

oops..deleted, mistake

 

*sigh* Wow.

The reason the invasion of Iraq was illegal under the UN charter is because no nation is permitted to invade another nation without the express consent of the Security Council. The Security Council was actually debating whether to consent to an invasion (and leaning toward saying no, due to any real immediate threat from Iraq and the opposition of most of the human beings on the planet Earth) when Bush decided to invade without the consent of the Security Council. That's why it was illegal. And that's why Kofi Annan said it was illegal. It's interesting to note, also that the United States is barred by DOMESTIC law from invading a country unprovoked, which is what happened in this case. Saying that they "might" have had weapons isn't good enough - especially since even IF Iraq had the weapons they were accused of having, they certainly didn't have the weaponry or intent to attack the United States. But as we all know well, they didn't even have the weapons Bush said they did. That was a lie. And Bush is a war criminal.

 

What part of the U.N. charter allows overthrowing a sovereign state? That's an issue above that of security council resolutions.

.

 

You are incorrect. From http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm


"the Preamble to the UN Charter begins by declaring its primary purpose is “to prevent the scourge of war,” and Article 1 repeats this prerogative by stating that the UN’s role is to “maintain international peace and security.” As a peremptory norm of international law, Article 2(4) more explicitly prohibits the use of military force in international affairs except in accord with the guiding principles of the UN: “All members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In retrospect this emphasis may be appreciated as a consequence of the UN Charter having been drafted and adopted at the end of World War II, when the avoidance of warfare seemed of the utmost importance. Today, in light of the Iraq invasion, it seems no less important.

If and when warfare seems unavoidable, Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter specify under what circumstances military conflict can be sanctioned. Article 41 declares that effective means short of conflict must first be employed to resolve differences, and Article 42 makes it plain that only with the failure of these preliminary measures may the Security Council vote to permit military action. This decision is obtained by vote as specified by Article 27(e) earlier in the Charter.

Both Articles 41 and 42 are relatively short and may be quoted in their entirety:

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Also permitted by Article 41 as a “measure not involving the use of armed force” would be the inspections specified by Resolution 1441 in order to ascertain Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Only the failure of these measures to satisfy the Security Council would justify warfare as explained by the next article:

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

In a nutshell, if preventative measures are found to be unsuccessful, then--and only then--can the Security Council decide to permit warfare. First there must be an effort short of warfare, after which warfare may be undertaken once the consent of the Security Council has been obtained through its finding that the preliminary effort has been unsuccessful. Obviously, this consent may only be ascertained by means of a vote--exactly the vote Secretary Powell first sought, then avoided, once he realized he would lose it, since UN inspections had come up with no evidence of WMD in Iraq. As a result, Powell was not able to recruit a majority of delegates who supported an invasion, and, even if he had, both France and Russia were prepared to veto the measure. He accordingly skipped the required vote, after which President Bush launched his invasion--necessarily an illegal act of war, since it had not been approved by the Security Council.

Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare by the Security Council. Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore illegal.

The only exception to this sequence is under an extreme emergency as specified by Article 51 of Chapter VII: “Nothing in the Present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . .” However, the situation with Iraq did not fit this description, since Iraq had never attacked the U.S. or U.K., and there was no evidence of any imminent armed attack against anybody else. Thus Article 51 did not apply."

 

Still nothing in there that allows the overthrow of another sovereign state. Maybe I missed it.

.

 

Try:


F.W. DeKlerk in The Union of South Africa.

General Raoul Cedras on the Island of Haiti.

Slobidian Miloslovic in Serbia.

Gen. Pinochet in Chile.

Batista in Cuba.

Baby Doc Duvaillier in Haiti.

Ferdinand Marcos in The Philipines.

General Jurasliski in Poland

Ceasceau in Romania.

Strossner in Paraguay ( after a 40 year Dictatorship )

Tyrants are driven out all the time, with or without the sanctimonious
approval of our United Nations.

Sometines with outside help, sometimes without.

 

The issue wasn't tyrrants driven out of power. It was whether there is anything in the U.N. charter that allows the overthrow of another state. The U.N. passed a resolution about Yugoslavia calling for respect of territorial integrity and a peaceful solution to the problem. That's different than one country unilaterally using its military to overthrow another state and then people trying to justify it after the fact by claiming that somehow it would have been within the framework of the U.N.

.

 

Look at this!!! You won't believe the end!!!!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPVPqERfTM4&mode=related&search=

 

I'd also point out that I am not referring to tyrants being driven out by their own people. It is illegal under the UN charter to overthrow a sovereign state - which Iraq was. Further, the fact that the US has violated international laws in the past is not a particularly strong legal argument. It's simply more evidence that the US considers itself above the law. I'd ALSO point out that the US has supported far more tyrants - and continues to do so - than its deposed, often installing one "friendly" tyrannical dictator in place of another.

 

I don't agree with everything you say, but I think this post hits it right on the head. I think this video helps show what you are trying to say. Don't you agree?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

 

I think someone should point out that the UN is basically useless

 

For me it is the fact he was not in compliance with UN resolutions - because of the 'programmes' and arms he had and was supposed to be making accountable. I think the resolutions 'allowed' for this action to be taken.
That is where the legality for this rests. Not with some 'sovereign' state being overthrown that has no resolutions pending on it. Iraq was not plucked from the ether it was under binding resolutions that were not met by him.

All the talk of Saddam having WMD or having the will to gain nuclear wepons is a little overblown - i can see that.This does not mean equal or more reasons were used in justification over many years. Looking at the video nobody conveiniently [though the film makers more than likely chose to ommit this] or through a honest lack of thought mentioned the slightly boring fact Saddam was not in compliance with UN resolutions.

That is why both sides use the UN Charter and Resolutions to make their case.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/20030307draft.pdf

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

In view of the situation created by Iraq, with their continued non-compliance of international law, I would like to remind you that we all said before we came here that we were not coming to the Azores to make a declaration of war, that we were coming after having made every possible effort, after having made this effort, continuing to make this effort, to working to achieve the greatest possible agreement, and for international law to be respected and for U.N. resolutions to be respected.

And we would like to say that we are aware of the fact that this is the last opportunity -- the last opportunity expressed in Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the Security Council, and that being aware that this is the last opportunity, we are also making the last effort. And we are ready to make this last effort of the very many efforts we've been making throughout these last weeks and months.

We are well aware of the international world public opinion, of its concern. And we are also very well aware of our responsibilities and obligations. If Saddam Hussein wants to disarm and avoid the serious consequences that he has been warned about by the United Nations, he can do so. And nothing in our document, nor in our statement, can prevent him from doing so, if he wants to. So his is the sole responsibility.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-3.html

The following is the Security Council resolution proposed by the US and Britain authorising the handover of sovereignty to Iraq on June 30th.

The Security Council,

Recalling its previous relevant resolutions on Iraq, in particular resolutions 1483 (2003) and 1511 (2003),

Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.

Recognizing the importance of international support, particularly that of countries in the region, Iraq's neighbours, and regional organisations, for the people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve security and prosperity.

Determined to mark a new phase in Iraq's transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward, to this end, to the end of the occupation and the assumption of authority by a sovereign Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article431690.ece

One thing that has not been mentioned it was not only the US.

Why ?.

 

The Bush administration was talking like the U.N was useless when it was invading Iraq. But after the invasion it turned to the U.N. for help. Similar to kids telling their parents that they are useless then coming back and asking for the allowance money.

.