http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Kofi Annan has himself declared the invasion as illegal. He's avoided it that word before, but now he declared it illegal against the UN. The war was controversial enough before, but has this tipped the scales, putting an end to any justification for the invasion?

Who cares about the what they say, not I.

The aide that said that Annan was doing this to cause political interference has a baseless argument. The people that would actually agree with Annan saying the Iraq Invasion was illegal already arent going to vote for Bush and the people who hate Annan and the UN already are going to vote for Bush. It doesnt change anything politically.

In terms of international diplomacy, I hope it knocked an inch or two off of Bush's unilatPenis.

Go UN.

Sadly, though, while I agree that it was illegal, what are they going to do about it? And furthermore, while I was completely opposed to U.S. entry into Iraq, and I strongly want U.S. exfiltration from Iraq, I don't think that it would be beneficial to not finish what has begun.

Schming wins.

I think the real question is, is our children learning?

EEDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Fixed.

Hmm. Safer?

I must agree. Coincidentially, before the actual invasion began, Israel was the only nation where a majority of the citizens favored the invasion (in the US, move people were against than for, though a lot were uncertain, though opinions shifted wildly in Bush's favor after the "Shock and Awe" campaign began). In invading Iraq, Bush had gone against the opinions and reccomendations of the vast majority of everyone, as well as a solid majority of all American citizens. I do hope that this latests announcement convinces some of the swing voters that Kerry, despite Bush's (sometimes false) claims, is still better than somebody who lies in order to push for something that only a small minority want.

I think the real question is "so what?"

Really, this has no implication for anything. Besides, every country ignores international law whenever it's inconvenient - the only reason law works within societies is because no one person is powerful enough to break it with impunity. That is not the case with states. International law is merely a veneer for countries who are trying to impose their will on others, for whatever reason. Think France really gives a **** about international law? They sure didn't when they were testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific nine years ago, and they didn't when the US invaded Iraq. France had very important economic interests in Iraq, like oil and unpaid debts. So, rather than openly declaring their support for a brutal dictator, they adopted international law as a pretext for opposing our war.

I do not think the international community will ever be analagous to human society; there will always be immensely powerful states, even if the worldwide standard of living levels out (which I think will happen.) But look at it this way - when the world stops producing dictators, tyrants, communists and violent religious extremists, America will have no reason to 'start' wars, legal or not. It's much cheaper to trade with peaceful neighbors than it is to invade and conquer them, if that were even possible.

This invasion just demonstrated that the UN has the power to do nothing. Heck, if Iraq can defy the U.N. for 15 years (longer if not for the U.S.), I think the U.S. can pull it off indefinitely.

Wait... people are back to caring about what the U.N. thinks? When did that happen?

If the war in Iraq proved nothing else it certainly showed how little influence the U.N. has on major issues right now. I'm happy Kofi Annan has decided to start having a say for once, but it's 18 months past relevant. Why the hell is he saying this now? The horse has bolted and the barn is on fire.

I care so much what some UN dude that I never herd of says.

People have no concept of how awful it must have been under Sadam Hussein, and now they're making the liberation seem bad just for politics. I really don't care what the UN thinks. The powerful countries pretty much do what they want anyway, and the majority of the countries are little tiny countries (but loud mouthed ones) that are always whining about things that don't effect them. Sorry to be insensitive, but what Mozambique and it population of a couple million thinks really has no realistic relation on anything. The UN is all about beurocracy, and pretending that there is peace when there in fact isn’t. Another thing I hate about the UN is that they think that they should decide how America is run. I really do not want a bunch of tiny, hypocritical, corrupt African countries telling us what to do. What we do is our decision, not the worlds. Sorry if what I said is insensitive, but it’s my opinion. It makes sense too.

Never heard of? This guy is basically in the seat of the future "president of earth" Maybe I am just paranoid (very much so) but I see nothing good coming out of the UN, and even though I disregard biblical prophecies as bs, I am wondering if the UN will some day be headed by an antichrist figure.

This is pissing me off. Why should we have to let other countries decide whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves. **** the UN

And we care so much about what you say.

I can't stop laughing. You just made my day.

Wow.

Actually, the UN prevents world government by maintaining sovereighty of nations.

As Sine said, it doesn't matter. When was the last time the US paid its dues to the UN? Uhh never! Did we ratify their international criminal court? No. Big deal. We'll live.

Int'l law isn't my favorite thing, honestly.

There is a slightly large contradiction in there.

If you expect the U.N. to police the actions of Saddam Hussein, you have to accept people to also look at you. This is something most countries in the U.N struggle with, even my own Australia. Whenever the UN Human Rights Commission finds fault in other countries we jump down their throat, but when the same commission makes some comments about us we tell them to go **** themselves. No system can work properly with that consistent contradiction and it's one major reason why the U.N. is so ineffective.

no blood 4 oil lolol

also, everyone knows that kofi annan is part of the illuminati and is involved in a conspiracy with france to take away our freedom and our guns and make us commies.

They change heads of the UN every month. I don't keep track of it. The UN really dosen't have any power. It only can ask nicley. The powerfull counteries spout lots of crap down there, but it really dosen't have much effect on what they do.

Um...
No. Stop talking.

I concur with Mikus. Obi has had his speaking privileges revoked.

Where the hell did you hear that?

Oh, and you do?

Funny, I thought we were doing that on our own.

Don't worry. That's not being insensitive, that's being opinionated and naive.

Well, at least you've got one thing right.

Since when has the UN tried to tell the US how to do anything ?

I think this one speaks for itself

The key words in this sentence being 'insensitive' and
'opinion'.

Wow! Thanks to the new forums, I can dissect and insult Obi's "opinions" in half the time!

No. How about YOU stop talking unless you come up with a decent rebutal. I really hate it when people are to arrogent to give you a decent answer other than "shut up". No matter how stupid you think a person's oppenion is, that is no excuse to tell some one to shut up. That should be a temp ban offence.

I think excessive stupidity should also warrant a temporary ban. But hey, neither of us are admins, so our opinions don't mean jack ****.

Isn't the head of the Security Council (aka head of the UN) rotated every 7 years? I can't remember. But I'm suprised Kofi waited this long. He hasn't liked American policy even when Clinton was president. I do however, for his sake, hope he kicked the crap out of his son. Having his son involved in the Food for Oil scandal probably doesn't lend a whole lot to his credibility on this issue if he hadn't done something with his son.

The UN works well as a forum for nations to discuss issues, but it really isn't that great for law making. Law making requires force to back it up. For good or bad, the US, UK, and Australia are the UN when it comes to the military aspect of it.

....obviously. Are there any subjects you are properly informed on?



U.S. Check. UK. Check. Australia...wait, Australia is what? We are so far from being a military power it ain't funny :p

Well... I thought it would be rather rude to pick apart your ignorant posts, so I tried to save you some embarassment, but oh dear, you seem to have gone and made it worse... And I'd rather leave it to more eloquent posters such as Wolfy to get into the fine details of how very wrong you are. I would advise that perhaps you check your facts before you post, in the future. Contrary to popular belief, opinions can be wrong.

If you want to learn a little more about our good friend Mr. Annan, try here.

http://www.iamhitler.com

P.S. No one likes a minimod

"They change heads at the UN once a month" is NOT an opinion. It's...well...let's just say you basically provided your own rebuttal.

I am happy. That is all.

Well, okay, it's the US and then the UK decides it's best to buddy up with the US. Than Australia looks at us and doesn't want to be left out of a commonwealth of english speaking countries and tags along like a sidekick. Canada would join too, but they don't want to piss off Quebec.

/half serious, half joking

The UN is not NATIONAL POLI...oh god.

Obi--stop trying to dig yourself outta this one.

dude, you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. I fixed it, but I couldn't help but laugh. The irony isn't lost on me.

Hole in one



Shush, eat your popcorn....just stop stealing mine.

Obi_Kwiet, take your own advice, for your own sake.

Bah, you beat me to the international Kieran :p