Uh oh!

[gold eagle]

Whatever the outcome I hope that European-American relations are repaired. Saddam is yesterday's news now, is it possible to move on?

[FrameWork]

Whatever the outcome I hope that European-American relations are repaired. Saddam is yesterday's news now, is it possible to move on?

I'll second that motion, at first i was angry, but i forgive really easily. We are all nieghbors in this life, whether we like it or not.

[Ghostdog]

rcgreen said

there is no world government

And what about the UN ? Ok that's not really a gouvernment but an association of gouvernment. There job is to keep peace, maintain policies, laws etc. Since UN was against a military force, Bush war was illegal. If not why US are in UN ? Why making UN if you don't listen to it and do what you want ?

gold eagle said

Saddam is yesterday's news now, is it possible to move on?

100% agree. The war is past, now Iraq and Iraqis need help to reconstruct THEIR countr. And they need everybody US, UK and UN. The war was 3 weeks but the reconstruction will take much more.

[darkes]

Originally posted here by Ghostdog

And what about the UN ? Ok that's not really a gouvernment but an association of gouvernment. There job is to keep peace, maintain policies, laws etc. Since UN was against a military force, Bush war was illegal. If not why US are in UN ? Why making UN if you don't listen to it and do what you want ?


100% agree. The war is past, now Iraq and Iraqis need help to reconstruct THEIR countr. And they need everybody US, UK and UN. The war was 3 weeks but the reconstruction will take much more.

You are quite right that is the aim of the UN.

The problem with the UN is that it has an archaic structure dating back to the original league of nations formed after WWII. The real decisions are made by the security council, which has 5 permanent members (China, Russia, US, UK, and France), and 7 others chosen on a rotating basis from all other nations.

The problem is this is not a democracy. Any of the 5 permanent members can veto any resolution, so an 11-1 vote in favour is not enough. So if any resolution is proposed that affects the economic or political interests of any of the 5 it is vetoed e.g. Israel (US), Iraq (France), former USSR states (Russia), Tibet (China) etc. etc.

This means that the UN is only a talking shop when it comes to really important issues.
To take Iraq as an example - France publicly stated it would have vetoed any amended resolution (because of its economic interests with Iraq), but if there had been a straight majority vote, it is highly likely an amended resolution would have been passed.

To describe the Iraq war as illegal under international law is not correct, as Iraq was in breach of numerous UN resolutions. Same thing applies to Israel, but until recently the US was reluctant to intervene.

[Ghostdog]

France publicly stated it would have vetoed any amended resolution (because of its economic interests with Iraq)

Yes and No. France was OK for the war in 1991 so the ecenomic interrest was not the ONLY reason why France said they veto any resolution (in fact we don't have veto since Russia did it).

[bballad]

I htink a major reason is Frances/EU's fear of US power, with out the Soviets to keep us in check we have started to throw our weight around, and that scares just about every body. Well that and Frances continueing irelavance in international afferiars...they still want to be top dog and resent the fact the the US is.

[darkes]

Originally posted here by Ghostdog


Yes and No. France was OK for the war in 1991 so the ecenomic interrest was not the ONLY reason why France said they veto any resolution (in fact we don't have veto since Russia did it).

This is factually incorrect - Russia did not veto the resolution as it did not come to the vote.
Russia stated it was intending to veto the original resolution - in diplomatic terms this means that it would have supported an amended resolution that protected Russias interests.

France, on the other hand, stated that it would veto any amended resolution under any circumstances i.e. it was not prepared to give Iraq an ultimatum to fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors (with say a 3 month timetable).

[Viperboy]

Originally posted here by darkes
How do you define a 'legal war' ??

According to informed opinion the "war" against Iraq did have legal backing, because of previous UN resolutions. You'd need to get a bunch of international lawyers together to get their different views on this.

From a technical point of view it was not a "war" as nobody declared war. No country has officially declared war for about 40 years afaik, because there is no point in doing so.
On moral grounds you can argue both ways, but that is not the same as stating it is 'illegal' under international law. If the final US/UK/Spanish resolution had come to the vote, and been lost, then this legal position would have been undermined.

The fact that France was going to veto any resolution obviously prevented this happening.

France is guilty as charged over this, as it had massive trading links with Iraq (oil, missiles etc.) which it now stands to loose. Of course it is not the only country to trade with obnoxious regime (the US has been doing it for years), but in this case France has been caught red handed.

Well said.

Is'nt it funny how when all these ppl talk about 'legal' and 'moral' issues, they seem to dismiss the illegal and immoral acts of Saddam. It seems to slip their narrow minds.... How many resolutions were there??

Oh well, the right path was taken and with minimal losses, both civilian and military.

Regards,
[pong][glowpurple]VB[/glowpurple][/pong]

[FrameWork]

How many resolutions were there??

I believe there were 17 or 18.

[schoolsucks]

The French Government has a lot of problems to say the least. Not that I'm saying that the U.S. doesn't, but France has been giving almost everyone hell for years and now they are caught helping Iraq. Hmmmmm, who would have guessed it was the French government that did this? I agree with Bballad that the French are just jealous.