Court Martial of American Officer for refusing to serve in Iraq
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige et al
The law on self defence falls into two camps: those who believe in so-called "anticipatory self-defence", which allows you to attack an army sitting on the other side of a border before it attacks, and those who reject this and insist that defence can only occur after an actual attack. The row between the two sides is vociferous and has led to some significant ill-feeling.
In practice, there is little distinction on the ground between the mainstream opinion on both sides. The majority of those who insist on an actual armed attack would not insist that a country sits idly by until the first shell lands or the first air raid crosses the border; this group (of whom I am one) would accept that this is highly dangerous position given the ability of a massive C4ISTAR first strike rendering the attacked country unable to defend itself. As a result where there is compelling evidence that a first strike is imminent, and in the words of the Caroline test "leaves no moment for decision", then a pre-emptive strike would be allowable.
To put this into context, this probably means that the attack would be 24-48 hours away.
To most advocates of "anticipatory self-defence", the right to attack to defend is also only when there is a clear and immediate threat. The case of the 1967 Israeli attack leading to the Six Day War is usually held up as an example, but it also raises serious questions about the quality of Israeli intelligence, as it is subsequently became clear that Nasser probably didn't intend to attack the Israelis (knowing he'd lose) but instead was engaged in lots of posturing (which went horribly wrong).
The reason for the row between the two sides is that those who oppose "anticipatory self-defence" do so because in allowing it, you open the door to what became the Bush Administration detailed in the 2002 National Security Strategy as "pre-emptive self-defence". This basically says that you can attack whoever you want if in your view, they may pose a threat to you at some point in the future, and was the basis of the Israeli 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor complex.
In essence, "pre-emptive self-defence" attempts to re-write the UN Charter's renunciation of the use of force - and it is therefore both illegal and extremely dangerous; after all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander - and if the west decides aggression is ok, then we can't complain when others use the same rationale against us. It is for this reason that the neo-conservative 2002 National Security Strategy is so dangerously short-sighted: be under no illusions: the West, with the US and the UK in the lead redesigned the international legal order in 1945 for our own benefit, and it is a massive boon to us - throwing this away by binning the condemnation on the use of force would be a monumentally crass mistake.
S41
The law on self defence falls into two camps: those who believe in so-called "anticipatory self-defence", which allows you to attack an army sitting on the other side of a border before it attacks, and those who reject this and insist that defence can only occur after an actual attack. The row between the two sides is vociferous and has led to some significant ill-feeling.
In practice, there is little distinction on the ground between the mainstream opinion on both sides. The majority of those who insist on an actual armed attack would not insist that a country sits idly by until the first shell lands or the first air raid crosses the border; this group (of whom I am one) would accept that this is highly dangerous position given the ability of a massive C4ISTAR first strike rendering the attacked country unable to defend itself. As a result where there is compelling evidence that a first strike is imminent, and in the words of the Caroline test "leaves no moment for decision", then a pre-emptive strike would be allowable.
To put this into context, this probably means that the attack would be 24-48 hours away.
To most advocates of "anticipatory self-defence", the right to attack to defend is also only when there is a clear and immediate threat. The case of the 1967 Israeli attack leading to the Six Day War is usually held up as an example, but it also raises serious questions about the quality of Israeli intelligence, as it is subsequently became clear that Nasser probably didn't intend to attack the Israelis (knowing he'd lose) but instead was engaged in lots of posturing (which went horribly wrong).
The reason for the row between the two sides is that those who oppose "anticipatory self-defence" do so because in allowing it, you open the door to what became the Bush Administration detailed in the 2002 National Security Strategy as "pre-emptive self-defence". This basically says that you can attack whoever you want if in your view, they may pose a threat to you at some point in the future, and was the basis of the Israeli 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor complex.
In essence, "pre-emptive self-defence" attempts to re-write the UN Charter's renunciation of the use of force - and it is therefore both illegal and extremely dangerous; after all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander - and if the west decides aggression is ok, then we can't complain when others use the same rationale against us. It is for this reason that the neo-conservative 2002 National Security Strategy is so dangerously short-sighted: be under no illusions: the West, with the US and the UK in the lead redesigned the international legal order in 1945 for our own benefit, and it is a massive boon to us - throwing this away by binning the condemnation on the use of force would be a monumentally crass mistake.
S41
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug: He will get no sympathy from me. Whilst I did not agree with the justyification for 'going in' in 2003, I went, I did my duty and came home. I still didnt agree with it last year but like so many others went because I was still in uniform and it was my duty. Even when I ended up on the 2 way range, I did what I needed to do and can balance my conscience but that doesnt stop me feeling ashamed that our collective actions are not making an iota of difference in Iraq.
If an individual is in uniform he does his masters bidding, if he cant get out of the service he has to do what he is asked IMHO. Until I hand my ID card in I will do my duty and try to balance my actions with my conscience, if I cant do that then I will seek help.
He deserves what he gets, he is there to lead troops and they rely on him - its called' sense of duty', if an individual wants a job where they can pick their loyalties then they should become a lawyer. Rant over
If an individual is in uniform he does his masters bidding, if he cant get out of the service he has to do what he is asked IMHO. Until I hand my ID card in I will do my duty and try to balance my actions with my conscience, if I cant do that then I will seek help.
He deserves what he gets, he is there to lead troops and they rely on him - its called' sense of duty', if an individual wants a job where they can pick their loyalties then they should become a lawyer. Rant over
Last edited by SaddamsLoveChild; 5th Jan 2007 at 11:45.
1. I merely suggested the possibility that he might have your sympathy as you guys had (unusually from my generation) expressed pointed criticism of the orders that you had acted under, and still are for that matter.
2. Yes but not without limit, even MAFL (or whatever your legal bible is now) covers that. After all we hung people at Nurnburg for the self same reason.
3. I think he is quite probably resigned to what he gets. As for his sense of duty, that is precisely what landed him in this.
On the whole I agree with your position, and hasten to say that I was never placed in the unenviable position that you and your ilk have been. Like the majority of the civilian population my overwhelming emotion is one of admiration for the way our servicemen and women have conducted themselves in harm's way, trying to give the moderate inhabitants of that benighted land some hope for the future, while contesting those who would deny them that. I salute you all. I condemn the administration that placed you in that ambiguous position, and the Chiefs of Staff who allowed them to do it and could have derailed this if they had the guts. I suspect that they knew then, what we all know now, that you were sent to war on a tissue of lies.
Thread Starter
Perhaps we missed a couple of facts here.
The American Officer is not a "Concientous Objector", but rather objects to this particular War in Iraq. If he had declared his "CO" status prior to enlisting (some paradox that would be) he could have feasibly served in a non-combat arms duty such as the Army Medical Corps.
Ovies,
I hate to report there are far more than "two" views held by the American people about Bush. To suggest there only two camps is naive and completely unrealistic.
A small example....within my American Post comprised of Veterans from all the wars and services of beginning with WWII, there are all variations of views about the war, Bush, Iraq, Iraqi's and politics.
In general, the common thread seems to be a view that we need to do whatever it takes to "win" in Iraq. We even have former Marines that advocate pulling up stakes and folding our tent. They do that until you ask them what that would mean to the current generation of soldiers.
The reality check is if we do that, we now have another generation of folks that were sacrificed to political expediency and who will have to live with that the rest of their lives just as Vietnam Vets do now.
The common feeling says "If you start a war....do whatever it takes to win it in a timely manner with the minimum of friendly casualties."
I re-state the initial question....."Can anyone cite a binding legal authority that has gone on record as saying the War in Iraq is Illegal?" Has any Court with jurisdiction over the matter issued a formal writ declaring the war to be illegal?
The American Officer is not a "Concientous Objector", but rather objects to this particular War in Iraq. If he had declared his "CO" status prior to enlisting (some paradox that would be) he could have feasibly served in a non-combat arms duty such as the Army Medical Corps.
Ovies,
I hate to report there are far more than "two" views held by the American people about Bush. To suggest there only two camps is naive and completely unrealistic.
A small example....within my American Post comprised of Veterans from all the wars and services of beginning with WWII, there are all variations of views about the war, Bush, Iraq, Iraqi's and politics.
In general, the common thread seems to be a view that we need to do whatever it takes to "win" in Iraq. We even have former Marines that advocate pulling up stakes and folding our tent. They do that until you ask them what that would mean to the current generation of soldiers.
The reality check is if we do that, we now have another generation of folks that were sacrificed to political expediency and who will have to live with that the rest of their lives just as Vietnam Vets do now.
The common feeling says "If you start a war....do whatever it takes to win it in a timely manner with the minimum of friendly casualties."
I re-state the initial question....."Can anyone cite a binding legal authority that has gone on record as saying the War in Iraq is Illegal?" Has any Court with jurisdiction over the matter issued a formal writ declaring the war to be illegal?
With regard the situation in Iraq Sasless can you define what is 'win'? Because until we define what this 'win' is we can't begin to work out what to do. Is it destroy all terrorists? Exterminate insurgents? Rebuild the country? Win over the hearts and minds? Oversee the dismantling of Iraq and the establishment of new states - what?
If we are doing things for the 'face' of the military or our elected leaders then it is the wrong reason and futile.
If we are doing things for the 'face' of the military or our elected leaders then it is the wrong reason and futile.
Thread Starter
Perhaps it is an American perspective here but the basic defintion of "winning" in Iraq has always been to effect a regime change and allow the establishment of a soverign democratic form of government by the Iraqi people.
I don't beleive that has changed.
The devil has been in the details.
Don't misunderstand what I was suggesting. I do not advocate the motivation for "winning" being a "face saving" effort.
The war in Vietnam was run by politicians who set far too many limitations on the way we fought the war and when the war dragged out due to their incompetence, they got weak kneed and pulled the plug on the effort thereby rendering the valor and sacrifice of a generation of soldiers to political folly.
What I am saying and others here as well....if we are going to send our men and women into battle, we owe it to them to do so with the complete support and assistance of the nation. Our politicians....political leaders....and military leaders agreed to the war. The reasons they did so, really do not matter.
When the war turned into a long termed thing vice a short relatively painless affair like the first Gulf War, those who were so keen on the war then began to shirk their own responibility and began to criticize the people who are having to fight the war.
Being a Vietnam Vet with two combat tours, I know too well what it feels like to have the carpet jerked from under my feet. I just do not want that to happen again and yet another generation have to suffer the same wound.
The fact that geniune "victory" and preventing that happening to the folks fighting, dying, and being maimed in this affair is the same makes it doubly important in my view.
Does it matter why you do the right thing....so long as you do the right thing?
I don't beleive that has changed.
The devil has been in the details.
Don't misunderstand what I was suggesting. I do not advocate the motivation for "winning" being a "face saving" effort.
The war in Vietnam was run by politicians who set far too many limitations on the way we fought the war and when the war dragged out due to their incompetence, they got weak kneed and pulled the plug on the effort thereby rendering the valor and sacrifice of a generation of soldiers to political folly.
What I am saying and others here as well....if we are going to send our men and women into battle, we owe it to them to do so with the complete support and assistance of the nation. Our politicians....political leaders....and military leaders agreed to the war. The reasons they did so, really do not matter.
When the war turned into a long termed thing vice a short relatively painless affair like the first Gulf War, those who were so keen on the war then began to shirk their own responibility and began to criticize the people who are having to fight the war.
Being a Vietnam Vet with two combat tours, I know too well what it feels like to have the carpet jerked from under my feet. I just do not want that to happen again and yet another generation have to suffer the same wound.
The fact that geniune "victory" and preventing that happening to the folks fighting, dying, and being maimed in this affair is the same makes it doubly important in my view.
Does it matter why you do the right thing....so long as you do the right thing?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The lives that were lost in vietnam were not lost without just cause... it taught American Policy makers they could be wrong and had got it hideously wrong in Vietnam. It unfortunately gave the commies a strategic victory very similar to the one the Islamists will claim when we pull out of Iraq. Ultimately, over time, Vietnam sorted itself out. Unfortunate also that the policy makers you now have in office have either forgot the lessons or are the generation on.
I am sure that will follow once your and our leadership changes... I wouldn't put it past those we currently have in power be up against war crimes charges at some stage in the future, one they lose the ability to protect themselves at a top level (can the President issue himself a pardon? I think not
). Or at the very least some form of charge; I daresay they (Blair as Lawyer scum) knows this.
Sasless whilst I empathise - the valor and sacrifice of soldiers is NOT a reason to continue war.
We owe it to The Services to NOT put them in harms way and NOT to leave them in harms way especially when military force is NOT the way to 'win'. They are there for when we fail to do the job properly by all the other means and for that I 100% support the Services.
No one is criticis(z)ing who is having to fight. On the contrary.
But we can not say we will see it through or go the extra mile or remain comitted or whatever sound bite sounds nice & continue with the ongoing situation.
There are over 3000 US soldiers dead now, scores of thousands Iraqi's - how many more of both is an acceptable cost? Another 1? 1000? 10000? Where do we stop? Remember that every 1 of those dead conservatively leaves 4 family; bitter, sad, and questioning why.
It is now an pure acedemic debate what was legal. It is a bar room conversation - how we support our troops.
We now, very certainly have to work out what will START to solve the problem that over decades we have contributed through our policies to causing. And the peoples that live in the countries involved have to for once decide amongst themselves how they want to live, or be excluded from the international community,
We owe it to The Services to NOT put them in harms way and NOT to leave them in harms way especially when military force is NOT the way to 'win'. They are there for when we fail to do the job properly by all the other means and for that I 100% support the Services.
No one is criticis(z)ing who is having to fight. On the contrary.
But we can not say we will see it through or go the extra mile or remain comitted or whatever sound bite sounds nice & continue with the ongoing situation.
There are over 3000 US soldiers dead now, scores of thousands Iraqi's - how many more of both is an acceptable cost? Another 1? 1000? 10000? Where do we stop? Remember that every 1 of those dead conservatively leaves 4 family; bitter, sad, and questioning why.
It is now an pure acedemic debate what was legal. It is a bar room conversation - how we support our troops.
We now, very certainly have to work out what will START to solve the problem that over decades we have contributed through our policies to causing. And the peoples that live in the countries involved have to for once decide amongst themselves how they want to live, or be excluded from the international community,
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's leader, has an interesting take on the impact of the Viet Nam War in the current issue of 'Foreign Affairs'.
The gist of it is that while the end of the Viet Nam conflict appeared to be a debacle, the fighting of it gave the other dominoes, such as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand time to construct their advanced industrial economies while the Communist juggernaut was tied down. Thus, he concludes, the strategic victory went to the free world, a.k.a. the US. Looking at the current Asian environment, I tend to agree.
I believe it was Chou En-lai who was asked of the impact of the French Revolution and replied, "It's too soon to tell."
Iraq may prove, and I hope it does, to be similar.
The gist of it is that while the end of the Viet Nam conflict appeared to be a debacle, the fighting of it gave the other dominoes, such as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand time to construct their advanced industrial economies while the Communist juggernaut was tied down. Thus, he concludes, the strategic victory went to the free world, a.k.a. the US. Looking at the current Asian environment, I tend to agree.
I believe it was Chou En-lai who was asked of the impact of the French Revolution and replied, "It's too soon to tell."
Iraq may prove, and I hope it does, to be similar.
Mentor Lee is indeed a clever man. In hindsight he is a genius. We all are.
He is not wthout his faults and before taking his words as gospel one should consider the times he has been wrong or contradictory.
An example been selective breeding amongst the (Chinese) elite in Singapore.
He is not wthout his faults and before taking his words as gospel one should consider the times he has been wrong or contradictory.
An example been selective breeding amongst the (Chinese) elite in Singapore.
Thread Starter
Ben,
I fully agree with what you say to the extent the Vietnam War was just another theater in the Cold War, a war which the West won.
My view is we could have done it much sooner and without the cost in lives and suffering on both sides if we had agressively pursued the fight rather than relying upon Johnson's Signal Sending methods. The photograph of LBJ on his hands and knees viewing photographs and maps while deciding what targets could be hit tells it all to me.
He should have done much like George Bush Senior did.....ask the military what they needed to be successful, provide that, and set loose the Dogs of War.
We did not do that in Korea and settled for an Armistice....see where we are now as a result of that decision. Look at the plight of the North Korean people under an oppressive Communist Regime and compounded by the threat of nuclear weapons that government continues to advertise.
During Vietnam we never invaded the North and allowed the enemy the use of sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos without destroying them. It was not until Nixon sent the B-52's to down town Hanoi and mined Haiphong harbor did the North Vietnamese understand what military power of the US was all about.
Within a week, they came to the table and agreed to the equivalent of an armistice with us. It was not until the Democrat controlled Congress terminated funding of the South Vietnamese did the Communists win.
A couple of million Cambodians died as a direct result of that decison to completely withdraw and many other South Vietnamese....something the anti-war folks ignore.
If we pull out of Iraq without ensuring the stability of the government there....how big a blood bath are we talking about this time. How many other wars and fighting will take place in that region so critical to the economies of the world.
The overall foreign policy of the United States has been to foster freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are accused of being a pseudo-colonial power in that regard but most critics fail to acknowledge how many nations and people are now enjoying the benefits of living in freedom.
I fully agree with what you say to the extent the Vietnam War was just another theater in the Cold War, a war which the West won.
My view is we could have done it much sooner and without the cost in lives and suffering on both sides if we had agressively pursued the fight rather than relying upon Johnson's Signal Sending methods. The photograph of LBJ on his hands and knees viewing photographs and maps while deciding what targets could be hit tells it all to me.
He should have done much like George Bush Senior did.....ask the military what they needed to be successful, provide that, and set loose the Dogs of War.
We did not do that in Korea and settled for an Armistice....see where we are now as a result of that decision. Look at the plight of the North Korean people under an oppressive Communist Regime and compounded by the threat of nuclear weapons that government continues to advertise.
During Vietnam we never invaded the North and allowed the enemy the use of sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos without destroying them. It was not until Nixon sent the B-52's to down town Hanoi and mined Haiphong harbor did the North Vietnamese understand what military power of the US was all about.
Within a week, they came to the table and agreed to the equivalent of an armistice with us. It was not until the Democrat controlled Congress terminated funding of the South Vietnamese did the Communists win.
A couple of million Cambodians died as a direct result of that decison to completely withdraw and many other South Vietnamese....something the anti-war folks ignore.
If we pull out of Iraq without ensuring the stability of the government there....how big a blood bath are we talking about this time. How many other wars and fighting will take place in that region so critical to the economies of the world.
The overall foreign policy of the United States has been to foster freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are accused of being a pseudo-colonial power in that regard but most critics fail to acknowledge how many nations and people are now enjoying the benefits of living in freedom.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I think these two cases will just become argueing points in what I see as a polarisation of the American population - those who support Bush entirely and those who can't stand him. Those who support Bush will label these men traitors, those who don't will label them as martyrs to the cause.
Those on the extreme left wing may try to hold this Lt. up as a martyr. He volunteered for the military and now that he's scheduled to pay the piper by getting shipped to Iraq, he is suddenly questioning his previous decision. I believe the vast majority of the US will have very little sympathy for him.
Perhaps it is an American perspective here but the basic defintion of "winning" in Iraq has always been to effect a regime change and allow the establishment of a soverign democratic form of government by the Iraqi people.......
The overall foreign policy of the United States has been to foster freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are accused of being a pseudo-colonial power in that regard but most critics fail to acknowledge how many nations and people are now enjoying the benefits of living in freedom.Today 17:22
The overall foreign policy of the United States has been to foster freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are accused of being a pseudo-colonial power in that regard but most critics fail to acknowledge how many nations and people are now enjoying the benefits of living in freedom.Today 17:22
We had our problems with US policy in WWII, your State Department being more suspicious of UK aims than those of the USSR, but faced with dangerous and implacable enemies we kept the show on the road. Better co-operation emerged in the Cold War, though Vietnam as always divided us as did Suez. I served in the 60/70s and can vouch for the mutual respect and co-operation that existed between our Armed Forces. My crew spent an evening as guests of the USAF at Clark Field and your hospitality was generous and overwhelming. Time and again we learned (as I hope did you) that far more unites us than divides us.
But if US administrations are set on a series of Iraq like adventures, toppling regimes to foster "freedom" here, there and everywhere, I think I can safely say you will be on your own. As Sam Goldwyn might have said, "Included us out!" There is nothing special in this relationship, it is crass and dangerous, and needs rethinking.
Thread Starter
Chug,
Care to provide an accounting of the various death tolls?
Add victim's of Saddam's Death Squads, Gas Attacks on the Kurds, the mass graves found so far, the Iranians that died in his first invasion of a neighbor, the Kuwaiti's from his second invasion of a neighbor, the troops lost in both Gulf Wars, civilians killed during the Iran War and the two Gulf wars and come to a tally.
Chalk up to the Americans all coalition deathes of any sort including those murdered by Terrorists and Al Qeada attacks, and insurgent attacks....and come to a final tally.
I dare say....even using your logical premise....the Iraqi people are still better off determining their own future. The fact they are murdering one another in the process is all the more tragic.
if Iraq is an example they were better off under a brutal dictatorship. At least the death toll was lower.
Add victim's of Saddam's Death Squads, Gas Attacks on the Kurds, the mass graves found so far, the Iranians that died in his first invasion of a neighbor, the Kuwaiti's from his second invasion of a neighbor, the troops lost in both Gulf Wars, civilians killed during the Iran War and the two Gulf wars and come to a tally.
Chalk up to the Americans all coalition deathes of any sort including those murdered by Terrorists and Al Qeada attacks, and insurgent attacks....and come to a final tally.
I dare say....even using your logical premise....the Iraqi people are still better off determining their own future. The fact they are murdering one another in the process is all the more tragic.
My theme though is for the lessons my country must learn from this farrago. It seems that all the checks and balances of our democratic system simply vaporise if one man stands up in Parliament and very sincerely and gravely lies his head off, and gets key players in the decision tree to do the same. We have to do better next time!
Thread Starter
I question the repeated prior approvals given by our Congress just as they did in this current event.
Since WWII, we seem to find ourselves involved in wars that start with a commitment of troops and somewhere down the line after the bus goes over the bluff, Congress gets on its collective high horse and start trying to find a convenient goat to sacrifice.
Let's add in the factor we have an all voluteer military now.
If we had conscription where anyone and everyone's kids were going to be heading off to the butchers block....our citizenry would not be so unconcerned about our military being used as they are.
Everytime our politicians (in and out of uniform) play their games for personal gain....and ignore the public good....we get ourselves in a mess.
In trying to downsize the active military to save money....we grew our Reserve and National Guard units so that as unlike during Vietnam, the Reserves would be called out. The Military politicians did this to ensure there would be no more Vietnams where only the active duty personnel fight the war.
Their mistake was in failing to see the future and did not give the thought of almost continous commitments as has happened.
It is said that we always show up to a war with military designed for the last war.....and not the new one. That is really the case here in Iraq for sure....someone thought this would be Gulf One ReDux.
Since WWII, we seem to find ourselves involved in wars that start with a commitment of troops and somewhere down the line after the bus goes over the bluff, Congress gets on its collective high horse and start trying to find a convenient goat to sacrifice.
Let's add in the factor we have an all voluteer military now.
If we had conscription where anyone and everyone's kids were going to be heading off to the butchers block....our citizenry would not be so unconcerned about our military being used as they are.
Everytime our politicians (in and out of uniform) play their games for personal gain....and ignore the public good....we get ourselves in a mess.
In trying to downsize the active military to save money....we grew our Reserve and National Guard units so that as unlike during Vietnam, the Reserves would be called out. The Military politicians did this to ensure there would be no more Vietnams where only the active duty personnel fight the war.
Their mistake was in failing to see the future and did not give the thought of almost continous commitments as has happened.
It is said that we always show up to a war with military designed for the last war.....and not the new one. That is really the case here in Iraq for sure....someone thought this would be Gulf One ReDux.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love al this useless prattle about the United Nations and "international law." If anyone depends on the United Nations to do ANYTHING to protect them, they are seriously deluded.
Mass murder going on in Africa while the UN leeches stuff their pockets, then bleet about the United States taking out another mass murderer.
The UN should be moved to someplace more fitting for it's reputation for fecklessness . . . like Paris.
Mass murder going on in Africa while the UN leeches stuff their pockets, then bleet about the United States taking out another mass murderer.
The UN should be moved to someplace more fitting for it's reputation for fecklessness . . . like Paris.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, it does seem kinda ironic the UN being in NY when America don't give a **** what other nations think.
"If anyone depends on the United Nations to do ANYTHING to protect them, they are seriously deluded."
Sure, and so long as America keeps using their veto to stop the UN intervening when it don't suit them thats how it's gonna be. No point in moving to London, England's just as bad with the veto.
Maybe if Bush and Blair hadn't ignored the UN over Iraq we wouln't be in this mess.
"If anyone depends on the United Nations to do ANYTHING to protect them, they are seriously deluded."
Sure, and so long as America keeps using their veto to stop the UN intervening when it don't suit them thats how it's gonna be. No point in moving to London, England's just as bad with the veto.
Maybe if Bush and Blair hadn't ignored the UN over Iraq we wouln't be in this mess.
Why do some Americans forget how much the French have supported them in other wars? Is it because on this occaision the French were right about what would happen?
Why are people so easily indoctrianated by their governments that they don't think for themselves?
We are reaping the rewards of foreign policies over the past 40 odd years. And we need to look at other ways to solve the issues now cos continually throwing troops at the problem is not going to solve anything.
I'm reminded ofthe scene in Fantasia - the one with the brooms helping to empty the water....
Why are people so easily indoctrianated by their governments that they don't think for themselves?
We are reaping the rewards of foreign policies over the past 40 odd years. And we need to look at other ways to solve the issues now cos continually throwing troops at the problem is not going to solve anything.
I'm reminded ofthe scene in Fantasia - the one with the brooms helping to empty the water....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road trip, if the US had listened to Kofi Annan, Sec Gen UN, they would not be in this mess now. Or should we ask the people of Lebanon on the receiving end of a UK/US veto whilst getting bombed back 30 years? The UN has always been something handy to kick in frustration. The UK/US went cap in hand to get UN authority for the occupation of Iraq. Your comments do not reflect the idiocy of embarking on an illegal war. We have lost a great deal of moral authority in the World,by sidestepping the UN. that is very bad news.