This sure is a lively thread.....Just as the subjects warrant...I will add my two cents and then go back and read what was said since this morning, when I first opened the forum..
"For everyone who stated US actions in Iraq were criminal because they were done without the approval of the UN..."
It is a fact that the US actions are illegal, but only a trial could determine them as criminal..And as everyone knows the US does not recognize the world court as a viable entity, so a trial by it, or by a Geneva type tribunal/accord is most likely out of the question....see analysis of statement #4
"For everyone who considered France and other countries honorable by refusing to participate."
France chose to resist joining the "allies" for several reasons..Some of them may have been dishonorable. New information about the oil for food program and kickbacks by a few French businessmen, and politicians may have helped a little in their refusal to join in the fight..But..
The vast majority of the French population was against the invasion...A poll taken in March of 2003 showed that 87% of the population was against their country joining in on the invasion. I seems, for the most part that the French government followed the wishes of the citizens of its countrymen
"For those who hold up the UN as a symbol of what's right and decent in the world...
I have read most of the charter...and feel that if it is followed as written, that it is "a symbol of what's right and decent in the world" The problem with creeds and bylaws is that they are carried out by human leadership, and that makes them fallible...as is our own constitution and bill of rights, when those great documents are interpreted by people who manipulate the words of them to further their own personal agendas.
"For everyone who applauded Kofi for condemning US actions"
Annan was asked by an interviewer (BBC World Service 9/16/04), if he thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal....he said "I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal"
Note that he said "our". To me that says that at least some or most of the other members stand in agreement, and it is not only his opinion.
That seems to me, not a condemnation, but a statement of opinion based on the Signature of the representative of the United States that signed the original charter document..that signature (in the eyes of the UN and also mine) is a promise to uphold and obey the rules and laws of the organization.. Perhaps it should be considered as a breach of contract?
"For everyone who believes the US should take no action without UN approval."
I have not heard this stated by anyone on the left or anywhere else in those terms...If there is some documented evidence that shows this was stated, please post the website here, or e-mail me with the information...Implications or statements made and taken out of context, will not be considered evidence by me..I desire only the facts ...I want names and dates, and exact dialog.
In my mind, (The idea of taking no action without approval of the U.N.) is a deceptive statement made by the wars promoters, with the hope that it might strike up further hate for the U.N. and block the progress of that organization...Kudos to Rove and his Madison Avenue think tank/advertising, spin doctors for thinking up another way to sell their war as they do other commodities.
Back to facts, and away from opinion..
The U.N. Charter does not state that memeber/states must ask permission to defend themselves, in any manner feasible to protect its citizens and property, on its own sovereign land..
What it states is that for a member/state to make a strike (against a threat) it must be brought before the UNSC to be to be voted on and found acceptable or legal by the results of that vote...If a consensus is not reached, then the UN rule is that the proposed invasion is to be deemed illegal (if acted out by the proposer.)
The language is clear, that no sworn member can position itself in a combat situation (on foreign soil) without a consensus of the members of the UNSC, and not break the spirit of the charter.