I've been talking about it for a while now, about how the United States' invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq was illegal, etc., etc. The Bushies all shouted "p'shaw!" and such, about how I was a bastard for not wanting to invade, etc., etc.
Looks like Kofi Annan, though, has finally reached the conclusion that it was in fact, a violation of international law. (Original BBC article here).
It'd be extremely spiffy if someone in the UN decided to start trying to punish the US for its illegal activity. If we contravened the UN Charter, we could in theory be kicked out of the UN.
Yes, please. Do kick the US out of the UN. The UN is useless.
being a permanent member of the security council.. I don't see that happening ..
Anyway.. UN is useless w/o the US in it.. it's not time to kick anybody out.. except DUB'U Bush.
"The UN is useless."
I love comments like this from people. If the UN is so useless, then why did we try to (illegally) enforce it's doctrines? Oh, right, because it's only useless when it disagrees with us.
And to Juan's topic: the US can be a permanent member of the Security Council all it wants, but since the US is *also* horribly behind in its UN dues, it's not a leap to say "Oh, I'm sorry, you abandoned your position by not paying the dues. Would you like to apply for admittance as a normal member state now?"
My point is..
Without the US inside the UN, this is pretty much an empty shell.. and it would just put away the UN as a tool for diplomacy.. what would stop china, russia, just to withdraw and do whatever they think appropriate, invade taiwan? bomb chechnia? putting the US away from the UN, it's making it obsolete. Therefore, that's stupid. Even if US don't give a shit about UN most of the time, when they do, that matters.
Actually, I can see it filling a role much more important for the 21st century: banding together to oppose the tyranny -- yes, tyranny -- of the United States.
We push every other country in the world around, and we can do it because we hold the UN in check, able to veto things which might go against us, etc.
If you think the world isn't going to reach a point within the next century where they decide to band together and kick our ass, you're crazy.
If you honestly think "they couldn't possibly achieve that goal", you need to re-read your history, because it's almost always the big guy who gets toppled when he exceeds the size of his britches.
Oddly, I always felt that the WTO would eventually replace the UN. It's far more powerful, more unilateral (it's already hammered the US about things like steel tarrifs and what not, which we've relented). This is not to say that the WTO is by any stretch of the imagination out for any single groups benefit, aside from business in general, but it weilds the biggest hammer on the planet.
You know why? Because it can hurt America the only place it cares about - the wallet.
If we get pissed off at the UN, we just ignore them and do our own thing anyway. If we piss off the WTO, the other member-states simply say "oh, you're in violation of the WTO, so we're going to stop trade with you now, enjoy your solitude".
And, since we're incredibly dependent on imports, we immediately feel the pain.
I may not agree with the WTO a lot of the time, but I can certainly respect the power it wields.
Its been coming for a long time Derek..a long time..
To make such a serious charge and do nothing will seriously bring into question his credibility. As he's made such an accusations isn't it his duty to now do something? - If he thinks the US, Britain and the other countries acted illegally, he now has to work towards putting Saddam back in power.
Well, if you read it, he was very "diplomatic" inasmuch as he never actually said "I think they acted illegally" so as to prevent him from being forced to convene a war crimes tribunal and all that jazz.
But, it's also obvious "what he meant".
Not according to the papers this morning. Times, nypost,and even the link you gave - "... Mr. Annan's remarks in a radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation on Wednesday, in which he said for the first time that he believed the war was "illegal," - .
He described the removal of Saddam as illegal. Nothing diplomatic about that, it's a clear accusation and opens the door for any member of the UN to insist on a hearing. If no one comes forward, Annan should pursue the issue if he believes it to be true.