The war in iraq was "illegal" Annan

Memnoch

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

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

so... I guess this is the time to bring up all those debates we had about the legality of the war, does this finally put a lid on the issue?

I mean... who else is gonna tell us what is legal or not according to the UN but the sec general himself?

And while i do feel that annan is often powerless, i have always felt that he is honorable and trust worthy.

pete

But surprise surprise....

The US has rejected the United Nations secretary-general's claim that the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

But US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the use of force against Iraq had a sound legal basis.

Earlier, US allies including the UK, Australia and Poland also said the war was backed by international law.

In Baghdad, the interim Iraqi government said Iraqis had been happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm

keu

But US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the use of force against Iraq had a sound legal basis.

Bush and his coons would also have us believe that Iraq is heading towards democracy.

but..

.....

U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq..

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. intelligence report prepared for President Bush (news - web sites) in July offered a gloomy outlook for Iraq (news - web sites) through the end of 2005, with the worst scenario being a deterioration into civil war, government officials said on Thursday

I mean... who else is gonna tell us what is legal or not according to the UN but the sec general himself?

We will probably find the UN has no authority on these matters anymore, whether its legal or not still has no bearing on whether it's justified or not. Only time will tell.

link

Boggle

In fairness - the UN is like a toothless old dog at this stage. So its illegal - what are they going to do about it? Nothing.

They aren't even willing to intervene in sudan...

By the way, does anyone here actually believe (apart from being argumentative) that the war was justified and even if it was justifiable, was it legal?
(I remember some of the reasons but not many... links to AQ, wmd, oil, daddy didn't like him, he was a bad man, wore silly clothes, ...

cleareyed

whether its legal or not still has no bearing on whether it's justified or not. Only time will tell.

Legality isn't determined for the US etc. by K. Annan. It's determined by their own legal structures. Have those structures issued a judgement on the legality of the war?
I agree that only time will tell about Iraq2 being justified. There may well be civil war and continuing instability. All of the "players" there are prepared to kill to get their way. It remains to be seen which of them are prepared to let democracy take root.

sovtek

cleareyed wrote:

Legality isn't determined for the US etc. by K. Annan. It's determined by their own legal structures.

No it isn't. The USA is bound by UN Charter as it is a signed and ratified party to it. Even by US structures of law. The US Constitution binds the government to all treaties and international agreements it enters into.
If you want to go by that logic, then even Saddam did nothing "illegal".

Have those structures issued a judgement on the legality of the war?

And it took almost 100 years to find that slavery was in fact illegal.

All of the "players" there are prepared to kill to get their way.

Except when they don't use violence and get killed by US troops anyway.

It remains to be seen which of them are prepared to let democracy take root.

"Lett[ing] democracy take root" involves the Iraqi people being involved in deciding that...that has yet to happen.
That also assumes that the occupiers invaded and occupy Iraq to do just that. Evidence so far suggests otherwise. That's if one can believe that invaders can bring democracy.

Rock Climber

sovtek wrote:

No it isn't. The USA is bound by UN Charter as it is a signed and ratified party to it. Even by US structures of law. The US Constitution binds the government to all treaties and international agreements it enters into.

In fairness,I saw the interview and what annan said had to be dragged out of him like a sore tooth.
It's his opinion, he used the age old "escape" language of ... I believe
I got the impression that though it's what he believes, he didn't really want to be saying it or to be dragged into such a statement.

The "war" has not been declared illegal and cannot be by Annan, thats a job for the security council, which of course will never happen.
He's pragmatic and knows going down the road of analysis and counter analysis is pointless at this stage in the face of U.S power- and like it or lump it, thats what it is, U.S power.

We might aspire to having them use that power in a way more fitting with our(here on this board and elsewhere) ideals but all one can do is suggest this.
The consolation is perhaps to be thankfull that worse lunatics don't have such power...
I'd be as worried(and probably a lot more) by the type of society Putin might create wielding such power or worse what his country might do if over ran by communism.
I'd be more worried if by hook or by crook(pardon the pun) the followers of that Sheikh Abu Hamza got their hands on power.

Changing the world into a peace - love- and we all live in a yellow submarine while nice aint going to happen, it hasn't happened in the last couple of thousand years due to human nature so I don't see how it is to happen in the next thousand.
Making it better is always achievable, and a worthy aspiration but perfection-no-never.

Moriarty

Does the legality or not of it really matter to that many people? It's one of the most toothless arguments against the war I've heard, espically when there are many more lucid arguments that could be made if you didn't like it.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

I mean... who else is gonna tell us what is legal or not according to the UN but the sec general himself?

My understanding was that they had a system similar to most nations.

F'r example...Bertie coming out and declaring that something is illegal doesn't actually change the legality (or otherwise) of an act carried out in this state.

Annan can hold whatever opinion he wants, but I don't believe the determination is his to make. And if I'm right...and it isn't...he's neither doing himself nor the UN any favours by making such allegations.

jc

cleareyed

Interesting post sovtek. If the war was illegal according to the UN and that judgement binds US through its constitution then is it possible for US citizens to seek legal redress against their govt? An injunction perhaps? a prosecution? Until the US courts decide on that the opinion of K. Annan is irrelevant.

All players in Iraq kill to get their way. The shiites, the sunni, the foreign fighters, those who want to impose a theocracy based on sharia , the US, the British, and anyone else I have left out. And they all have killed civilians.

The struggle to let democracy take root in Iraq is underway. It has its local opponents who want something entirely different. I disagree with you about the evidence to date on what the invaders want re democracy. Until elections are postponed indefinitley I will withhold judgement. Finally, history has several examples of invaders bringing democracy.

sovtek

cleareyed wrote:

Interesting post sovtek. If the war was illegal according to the UN and that judgement binds US through its constitution then is it possible for US citizens to seek legal redress against their govt?

Yes it is, but it would probably rely on the Supreme Court...but being that they selected Bush it's not an option at this point.

An injunction perhaps? a prosecution? Until the US courts decide on that the opinion of K. Annan is irrelevant.

No K Annan isn't irrelevant and it isn't just up to the US courts to decide. The UNSC as well as the World Court has jurisdiction as well.

All players in Iraq kill to get their way. The shiites, the sunni, the foreign fighters, those who want to impose a theocracy based on sharia , the US, the British, and anyone else I have left out. And they all have killed civilians.

No not all players in Iraq are killing to get their way. Sadr didn't kill one person until his newspaper was shut down and the CPA tried to arrest him.
Al-Sistani isn't responsible for any deaths that I'm aware of. Then there are many aid workers that haven't picked up a gun either. Then there are the relatively high number of unarmed protestors that have been killed by US soldiers.

The struggle to let democracy take root in Iraq is underway.

Would that be a democracy of a select few people choosen by the US and their puppet in Iraq?

It has its local opponents who want something entirely different.

So the Iraqi people want something entirely different to the US? Democracy indeed.

Until elections are postponed indefinitley I will withhold judgement.

Even after elections the US will still not allow full sovereignty of Iraq.

Finally, history has several examples of invaders bringing democracy.

Such as?

Zulu

cleareyed wrote:

The struggle to let democracy take root in Iraq is underway.

...as voted for by the NeoCons in Washington?

cleareyed wrote:

It has its local opponents who want something entirely different.

Freedom? A society that works? The removal of a foreign, unwelcome, oppressive military force? Human rights?

cleareyed

I don't see how anyone who wanted freedom and human rights would oppose democracy. I believe that many of those fighting against the US forces in Iraq have an extreme islamic agenda which has scant regard for human rights and a narrow concept of freedom. I don't know what the Iraqi people as a whole want because they have not expressed that wish in an election.

I didn't list invaders bringing democracy because of the obvious reference to Germany 1945 and Japan 1945.

Zulu

The democracy that the US is bringing isn't a real democracy for one. As for human rights - where have you been hiding? Abu G.... - ever hear about it?


<edited for spellings>

Hobbes

cleareyed wrote:

I don't see how anyone who wanted freedom and human rights would oppose democracy.

Depends on what you see democracy stands for.

You have just had your house bombed.
Your neighbours and family members are dead in the blast.
You have to put up with 4am searches without warrents in your house.
You have lost your job and the chance of getting another is slim, the only jobs available will get you killed by your own country men.
You watch as your natural resources are put in the hands of your "Liberators" who force contracts that no one in their right mind would sign.
Your told that your evil dictators toture prisons are closed, when they just got new owners.

Then they tell you that they are building a democracy for you, while the party which has the popular vote is not allowed run.

Tell me would you oppose democracy in those situations?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Depends on what you see democracy stands for.

You have just had your house bombed.
Your neighbours and family members are dead in the blast.
You have to put up with 4am searches without warrents in your house.
You have lost your job and the chance of getting another is slim, the only jobs available will get you killed by your own country men.
You watch as your natural resources are put in the hands of your "Liberators" who force contracts that no one in their right mind would sign.
Your told that your evil dictators toture prisons are closed, when they just got new owners.

Then they tell you that they are building a democracy for you, while the party which has the popular vote is not allowed run.

Tell me would you oppose democracy in those situations?

While I agree that the Iraq situation is a mess all those things you mention Hobbes are subjective too.
Just looking close to home, one can see how an "occupying" power can be seen increasingly in a bad light to some.
Tens of thousands silently supported the IRA in NI for reasons not too distant to what you have listed there for Iraq.
It's got to the stage now for the Americans and the rest that they're damned if they stay and they're damned if they don't hasn't it?

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

While I agree that the Iraq situation is a mess all those things you mention Hobbes are subjective too.

Which ones?

My point is that a lot of people in the Middle East see this sort of crap as Western Values. They don't know what "Democracy" means, or rather they know what it means but they don't see Western Democracy as something good.

Just looking close to home, one can see how an "occupying" power can be seen increasingly in a bad light to some.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a "good light" story. I know I have tried.

It's got to the stage now for the Americans and the rest that they're damned if they stay and they're damned if they don't hasn't it?

It's a resource grab by the US. If they stopped that it might go a long way. Or actually letting people vote for who the majority want, not who you tell them they can vote for.

bonkey

cleareyed wrote:

I don't see how anyone who wanted freedom and human rights would oppose democracy.

Anyone who didn't believe in democracy being the best way to implement these things would.

Also,you are implicitly suggesting that your definition of what constitutes freedom is what these people should have. The US' vision of freedom for Iraq will not allow (from what I can understand) just anyone to run for office.

If the US (and the EU, lets make no mistake here) wouldn't stand idly by and allow a free and independant nation like Austria to freely, independantly, honestly and legally elect Joerg Haider and the Freedom Party into a relatively powerful position but instead imposed sanctions etc. to effectively force the man out.....what gives you the slightest hope that elections in Iraq will be anything more then "choose from among the candidates we deem acceptable to us, regardless of whether they're who you want or not"???

I believe that many of those fighting against the US forces in Iraq have an extreme islamic agenda which has scant regard for human rights and a narrow concept of freedom.

But do you believe the population should be denied the right to vote for democratic representatives who believe in an extreme Islamic agenda, which would allow them to democratically enact extrme Islamic measures should they gain sufficient support?

Or do you side with the "freedom only to choose what we'll let you" version of democracy and freedom?

I didn't list invaders bringing democracy because of the obvious reference to Germany 1945 and Japan 1945.

I'd only list Japan there. Democracy existed in Germany prior to 1945....it just took a short break.

jc

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Which ones?

Well not wishing to hang on mighty mouses coat tails but theres plenty of evidence coming out of the north of collusion between British forces and loyalist terror gangs...bombing murdering shooting etc and thats less than 30 years ago.

My point is that a lot of people in the Middle East see this sort of crap as Western Values. They don't know what "Democracy" means, or rather they know what it means but they don't see Western Democracy as something good.

Yeah thats true,It's gas though 'cause I'll bet a lot of them will watch re runs of chips dubbed in arabic.
As regards what "they" think of democracy, it's a mullah thing isn't it?
"They" wouldn't want a western democracy where heaven forbid women have as many rights as men and can vote.
Ok thats their tradition of centuries.

sovtek

I'd only list Japan there.
jc

And only if you weren't communist

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Yeah thats true,It's gas though 'cause I'll bet a lot of them will watch re runs of chips dubbed in arabic.

I dig French movies...but that doesn't mean I'm going to eat horse meat.

LightofDarkness

In response to the first post:

This is ridiculous. You look to the UN as though they're the be all and end all of morality and legality. Lets' examine the UN, shall we? It's basically the world super liberals club. That's right. Therefore, any conservative/republican decisions made will be bombarded, just because partisan politics exist there too.

And people who think they are anymore benign than the US are just plain idiots. I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world, but I'm time restricted. Furthermore, the UN is simply another failed attempt at an organisation; it started out with wonderful intentions but has just become another French/German club. Much like the EU is. In fact, they almost mirror eachother. But then, how can you expect we Irish to make a viable good decision based on examining both arguments when we have no right-wing or remotely conservative voice in this country? THERE IS NO CHOICE. All you can vote for is less left or more left. Having the Nice Treaty literally shoved down our throats goes to show it. No choice. I've gone off on a little rant here. To finish, the UN are treated like the greatest political body on earth, when they are far from that.

Gizzard

Hobbes wrote:

Depends on what you see democracy stands for.

You have just had your house bombed.
Your neighbours and family members are dead in the blast.
You have to put up with 4am searches without warrents in your house.
You have lost your job and the chance of getting another is slim, the only jobs available will get you killed by your own country men.
You watch as your natural resources are put in the hands of your "Liberators" who force contracts that no one in their right mind would sign.
Your told that your evil dictators toture prisons are closed, when they just got new owners.

Then they tell you that they are building a democracy for you, while the party which has the popular vote is not allowed run.

Tell me would you oppose democracy in those situations?

very well said, the whole Iraq issue is a joke from every angle. the bombings and torture is the iceing on the cake, who are the real terrorists?, I say USA

Gizzard

LightofDarkness wrote:

In response to the first post:

This is ridiculous. You look to the UN as though they're the be all and end all of morality and legality. Lets' examine the UN, shall we? It's basically the world super liberals club. That's right. Therefore, any conservative/republican decisions made will be bombarded, just because partisan politics exist there too.

And people who think they are anymore benign than the US are just plain idiots. I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world, but I'm time restricted. Furthermore, the UN is simply another failed attempt at an organisation; it started out with wonderful intentions but has just become another French/German club. Much like the EU is. In fact, they almost mirror eachother. But then, how can you expect we Irish to make a viable good decision based on examining both arguments when we have no right-wing or remotely conservative voice in this country? THERE IS NO CHOICE. All you can vote for is less left or more left. Having the Nice Treaty literally shoved down our throats goes to show it. No choice. I've gone off on a little rant here. To finish, the UN are treated like the greatest political body on earth, when they are far from that.

Nothing is perfect but UN are a better alternative then bastard bush and his monster government.

mycroft

LightofDarkness wrote:

Much like the EU is. In fact, they almost mirror eachother. But then, how can you expect we Irish to make a viable good decision based on examining both arguments when we have no right-wing or remotely conservative voice in this country? THERE IS NO CHOICE. All you can vote for is less left or more left. Having the Nice Treaty literally shoved down our throats goes to show it.

You can only vote left or more left?

Riiiiiggggghhhhttttttttt...........................

Guys I haven't woken up in some parrallel universe where bonkey and hobbes are PDs and Arcadegame works for the refugee council?

Do'yall have goatees???

Em both our major parties are center right. Our current government is a coalition between a conservative catholic party and a neo liberal right wing party..... Our only potential opposition will be a mixture of green labour and a party which had it's own fascist wing not 60 years ago.

AND YOU THINK WE'RE A LEFT WING COUNTRY?!!!?

To finish, the UN are treated like the greatest political body on earth, when they are far from that.

No but fundamentally if the world is going to grow into a more Harmonious and benefical one for everyone, we're going to have to stop pandering to the increasingly outmoded concept of "nations".

The UN's flaws come about because for it's existance it was a pawn in the cold war, and is currently underfunded by the major nations who dislike the concept of having to submit any law but the ones they choose to invent. It's become little more than a talking shop hampered by nations unwilling to give it real power because they dislike the idea of someone meddling in their affairs.

I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world, but I'm time restricted.

Please, do come back, I can't wait to hear this.....

Oh and I consider Nice to be a right wing victory.

Zulu

LightofDarkness wrote:

This is ridiculous. You look to the UN as though they're the be all and end all of morality and legality. Lets' examine the UN, shall we? It's basically the world super liberals club. That's right. Therefore, any conservative/republican decisions made will be bombarded...
And people who think they are anymore benign than the US are just plain idiots. I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world...

I suppose the same republicans have a better plan for the 3rd world?

keu

Guys I haven't woken up in some parrallel universe where bonkey and hobbes are PDs and Arcadegame works for the refugee council?

cleareyed

Old problem; what if someone who wants to destroy democracy seeks election? What if they win? What if they use the legal system to create an extra-legal state? The Hitler scenario. Personal opinion: no I don't think ppl who want to destroy democracy should be let stand for election. I think western ideas of freedom are better than those of Islam.

The UN has no power. If the war in Iraq was illegal that claim would have been tested in US courts by now due to the volume of opposition to Bush. And it would have been proved there.

Before the war I felt it would be another Vietnam; every day it gets more and more like it.

I know the history of Germany. Thanks.

bonkey

cleareyed wrote:

Old problem; what if someone who wants to destroy democracy seeks election? What if they win?

If they win, then the majority fo the people also want something other than democracy, and the only democratic result is to bow to their wishes.

Personal opinion: no I don't think ppl who want to destroy democracy should be let stand for election. I think western ideas of freedom are better than those of Islam.

So democracy is not majority rule? Its not about what the majority express a wish for? Its about what the majority express a wish for, limited by what other nations are going to allow them to choose.

Sounds like a variation of Home Rule to me....and last time I checked, Ireland didn't consider that to be a form of "freedom" from our English Lords and Masters when it was offered to us.

So its funny that the western idea of freedom that you're espousing is "choose from among the choices we give you".

The UN has no power. If the war in Iraq was illegal that claim would have been tested in US courts by now due to the volume of opposition to Bush. And it would have been proved there.

I think you're confusing the UN not having a specific type of power with the UN having no power.

I know the history of Germany. Thanks.

Nice of you to say, but the last time I checked, Hitler wasn't elected by a majority. In fact, Hitler never accrued more than 37% of the popular vote.

In the post I'm replying to, however, you referred to the majority choosing "not democracy" as "the Hitler scenario"....

So...if you want people to believe that you know German history, maybe you should stop misrepresenting it.

jc

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

Nice of you to say, but the last time I checked, Hitler wasn't elected by a majority. In fact, Hitler never accrued more than 37% of the popular vote.

That and the real possibility that his election might not stand up to an international observer these days.

Sand

So democracy is not majority rule? Its not about what the majority express a wish for? Its about what the majority express a wish for, limited by what other nations are going to allow them to choose.

Failed democracies are majority rule, successful democracies are governance in the interests of *all* with the consent of the majority. Otherwise democracy is that old parable of the 3 wolves and the lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

So even if a majority want to introduce Sharia law and restrict the freedoms of others thats not acceptable in a successful democracy. Many failed democracies in places like Africa, South America and Asia have not made that understanding part of the political landscape yet and the predicatable result is chaos, oppression, inter-ethnic strife and civil war.

So its funny that the western idea of freedom that you're espousing is "choose from among the choices we give you".

The stakes are far too important to allow mass panic, hysteria or idiocy to threaten the personal liberties of every citizen who has a right to have their liberties protected regardless of whose in power. That means a Nazi party advocating exterminating the Jews? Out - sorry, I know it makes our claims of democracy a bitter hollow joke but liberty>democracy. Some whacko Islamicist fundamentalists advocating enslaving women? Out - sorry, I know it makes our claims of democracy a bitter hollow joke but liberty>democracy.

If they win, then the majority fo the people also want something other than democracy, and the only democratic result is to bow to their wishes.

Democratic yes, liberal no - which only highlights the flaws in the "more democracy" argument. Democracy is a tool to protect liberty, by ensuring the governed are able to vote out a bad government - it is not an absolute good in and of itself.

Nice of you to say, but the last time I checked, Hitler wasn't elected by a majority. In fact, Hitler never accrued more than 37% of the popular vote.

Im open to correction here, but I dont believe there was ever a direct election for Hitler against another candidate - as it was the Nazis were the largest party from those elections and thus formed a democratically elected government.

Personal opinion: no I don't think ppl who want to destroy democracy should be let stand for election. I think western ideas of freedom are better than those of Islam.

Do you know what youve done there? Do you recognise your folly? Have dark visitations haunted your dreams? I think I can hear the howl of outrage echoing across the hills even now! Either way, I wouldnt lose too much sleep over it.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

So even if a majority want to introduce Sharia law and restrict the freedoms of others thats not acceptable in a successful democracy. Many failed democracies in places like Africa, South America and Asia have not made that understanding part of the political landscape yet and the predicatable result is chaos, oppression, inter-ethnic strife and civil war.

I know I've heard this somewhere before......
Oh Yeah!

Mr. Kissinger was heard to remark something like, "Why should we stand back and let an irresponsible people elect the wrong party?"

Sand

I know I've heard this somewhere before......
Oh Yeah!

Oh right - so if a party runs on a policy of killing all people who wear glasses, and they get elected then democratically all people who wear glasses should be killed? Its a democracy after all!

I mean youre disagreeing with me when I say parties with illiberal polices should not be allowed to be democratically elected. Unless of course youre disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

Do you know why Bush and Kerry are the front runners in the US elections? Because given the quality of the debate, thats the quality of candidate required to win.

cleansingfire

Nazi party was the largest single party in germany in both elections of 1932. hitler was appointed chancellor. to establish his tyrrany he got the support of two thirds of teh german parliament in the vote of the enabling act. in august 1934 90% of the german ppl voted in favour of hitler as fuhrer.
What i actually said was
"Old problem; what if someone who wants to destroy democracy seeks election? What if they win? What if they use the legal system to create an extra-legal state? The Hitler scenario."
Note: win election. Hitler won the election of 1932 being the largest party hence offered chancellorship. you glanced at my post and misread it and then misrepresented me as misrepresenting german history. Basically you missed.

Sand has hit the nail on the head.

(soon to be banned and sent to bold corner for answering back)

Sparks

Oh right - so if a party runs on a policy of killing all people who wear glasses, and they get elected then democratically all people who wear glasses should be killed? Its a democracy after all!

I love the way that you ignore the role of a constitution and civil rights in democratic societies Sand. But essentially, you're correct - if everyone wanted to, you could democratically vote to become a society modelled on the Spartans. All you'd have to do is elect one party to power, hold a referendum to throw out the constitution and write a new one, throwing out all civil and human rights in the process, and bob's your uncle, you can start a genocide and so long as you're not a country with any useful resources, the UNSC won't get involved because someone will veto the motion to do anything about it.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

- if everyone wanted to, you could democratically vote to become a society modelled on the Spartans.

Theres really only one place where that should be encouraged...

Sand

I love the way that you ignore the role of a constitution and civil rights in democratic societies Sand.

Sorry, isnt that *my* point? That successful democracies hold individual liberties higher than democratic principles?

But essentially, you're correct - if everyone wanted to, you could democratically vote to become a society modelled on the Spartans. All you'd have to do is elect one party to power, hold a referendum to throw out the constitution and write a new one, throwing out all civil and human rights in the process, and bob's your uncle, you can start a genocide and so long as you're not a country with any useful resources, the UNSC won't get involved because someone will veto the motion to do anything about it.

Which only serves to validate anti-democratic actions taken to protect liberites. Those one man, one vote, one time parties can take a hike.

LightofDarkness

If you ask me, the UN is a failure. It needs to be dissolved and then re-established, with greater integration in the member states. The only thing is it needs to listen to both sides, not just the left as it has seemingly done for a while now. It's almost powerless too, which is why it needs to be a group who have ultimate judgement on certain things regarding international affairs. Furthermore, the group should act a whole, as most political parties do, with nations acting together in group decisions. It's ridiculous how some nations "take their ball and go home" when things don't go their way in the current UN. This should not be allowed with strict, truly crippling sanctions imposed on nations who take no part in group actions because the decision didn't go their way. I know some of you will disagree, but it's a major part of why the group is powerless and non-functional today, and just a political chat room. Imagine it:
"My country won't partake in this action."
"What? You can't do that! I'll...I'll call your mother and tell her how much of a baby you're being! And other countries will show similar distaste and say bad things about you for a week. We'll see who's laughing then!"

Moriarty

If you impose those sorts of punishments, very few countrys would sign up in the first place lightofdarkness. Most espically the ones you'd try to be 'targetting'.

bonkey

LightofDarkness wrote:

The only thing is it needs to listen to both sides, not just the left as it has seemingly done for a while now.

How, exactly do you make this out?

The UN is an organisation of member-nations. The only way it would be "listening to one side" is if all of the member-nations were of that side.

Not only that, but if you look at the UN's most powerful members - those with a veto on the UNSC - I think you'll be hard-pushed to classify them all as left-leaning, let alone left-dominated.

I mean....this is the first time I've heard someone indirectly suggest either that the US is of "the left", or that the UN doesn't listen to the US.

jc

LightofDarkness

Have you seen the UN charter? It is very left leaning, especially on social issues. While I can't recall most of them now, I remember when reading alot of the articles it was quite leftward. Not that there's anything incredibly wrong with these laws, but it's not representing another large number of people. And let's face it, the represenatatives of the member states don't always uphold the wishes,values or opinions of their people, but rather themselves much of the time.
People seem to get the idea that I'm a right winger, but it's not true. I simply believe in fairness and I have noticed that the right or even parts of center right don't get enough representation these days and are often simply slammed with allegations before they get a word out.

Sparks

Not that there's anything incredibly wrong with these laws, but it's not representing another large number of people.

Indeed. Those damn leftie liberals and their "human rights"! Why don't they just understand that people want a good firm hand of leadership, and the right to kick the snot out of anyone who's different from them?

Zulu

If by "left leaning" you mean tolerant, then yes - but would you want to see something else?

bonkey

LightofDarkness wrote:

Have you seen the UN charter?

<sarcasm>
No...I'm opposing your opinion out of nothing more than a complete lack of knowledge of what I'm talking about
</sarcasm>

It is very left leaning, especially on social issues.

Care to give an example, showing how it is in any way "unfair" (seeing as its fairness that you profess to be interested in), or how a right-leaning replacement text would be any fairer?

While I can't recall most of them now, I remember when reading alot of the articles it was quite leftward.

Well isn't that convenient. YOu know it was leftward-leaning, but just not how. And you have the temerity to ask if others have read the Charter???

Not that there's anything incredibly wrong with these laws, but it's not representing another large number of people.

Its not representative of oppressive regimes either, nor religious intolerant ones. Communism doesn't get much of a favourable look-in either. Are you saying that the UN should also cater for these too???

And let's face it, the represenatatives of the member states don't always uphold the wishes,values or opinions of their people, but rather themselves much of the time.

So what? That is not the responsibility nor concern of the UN. It is a forum for national governments. How those governments govern is - by definition - an internal matter which is explicitly outside the remit of the UN.

I simply believe in fairness and I have noticed that the right or even parts of center right don't get enough representation these days and are often simply slammed with allegations before they get a word out.

You didn't get slammed before you got a word out. YOu got a word out, and were challenged on it, at which point you started crying out about how oppressed your opinion was.

Strangely, if you look at the UN, you'll see the same. You're confusing a system who's rules aren't right-leaning with a system who denies the right a voice. The right - and every other classification - have every right to seek to change the UN. or to encourage it to act in certain ways. They aren't denied their voice....its just that said voice may not carry as much weight as they'd like it to.

jc

sceptre

LightofDarkness wrote:

Have you seen the UN charter? It is very left leaning, especially on social issues. While I can't recall most of them now...

Where? Seriously.

UN Charter. Read it (again) and get back to me. Article 55 has a little section about people being able to eat and treating a white bloke the same as a black bloke but that's about as controversial as it gets as far as I can see - it doesn't even include the idea of sending children to school so they can read the Charter.

You're not mixing it up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (including the opening unilateral surrender of the English language paragraph) are you?

LightofDarkness

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil? That's so amazingly partisan and self-righteous it's sickening. You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person.

LightofDarkness

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil? That's so amazingly partisan and self-righteous it's sickening. You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person.

Furthermore, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. People aren't ready to accept alot of what's in the UN and EU charter, especially in this country. You can be tolerant, but only to a certain extent. Imagine the uproar about gay rights in this country when the EU charter starts to seep into official government legislation. The UN and EU charters are very similar. We must be tolerant, yes, but we mustn't allow ourselves to be desensitised.

LightofDarkness

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil? That's so amazingly partisan and self-righteous it's sickening. You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person. I started "crying?" Hardly. It was almost an expected reaction from you all. Most strict liberals can't see how anything but left can be right. Just because you're a self-professed liberal doesn't automatically deem you open-minded, in most cases these people are far from. Not that I can accuse you of that with absolute certainty, I don't know you well enough.

Furthermore, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. People aren't ready to accept alot of what's in the UN and EU charter, especially in this country. You can be tolerant, but only to a certain extent. Imagine the uproar about gay rights in this country when the EU charter starts to seep into official government legislation. The UN and EU charters are very similar. We must be tolerant, yes, but we mustn't allow ourselves to be desensitised.

Sparks

Repitition doesn't make it true, y'know...

Zulu

LightofDarkness wrote:

We must be tolerant, yes, but we mustn't allow ourselves to be desensitised.

Desensitised to what exactly?

bonkey

LightofDarkness wrote:

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

Please desist with the personal attacks. They're against the charter and won't be tolerated.

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil?

No, nor did I suggest it. I simply pointed out that saying a group isn't catered for in the rules does not necessarily make it a bad thing in and of itself. Before it becomes a bad thing, you have to show why those people deserve consideration, and why the rules should cater for them - something you have yet to do....you've just insisted that it neglects them and that this is a bad thing.

You argued that the system is wrong just because it doesn't cater for large numbers of people. I mentioned some groups of people that it also doesn't cater for...to highlight that your logic (as presented) says it should support them.

So if I'm likening the right wing to evil dictators and so on through that comment, I'm only doing so using the logic you presented. If its that deplorable a connection, then perhaps you should consider the comment for what it was intended to be - an illustration of the flaws in the argument you presented.

Incidentally, I notice you haven't supplied a single example of why the rules are left-leaning and why the right are somehow wrongly "ignored" by these rules.....care to enlighten us, or is this another case where you can remember that it is so, but not any details of why or how?

You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person.

All I've done is refuse to accept your point of view without questioning it and then point out where you have tried to defend your point of view with a flawed (or incomplete) line of reasoning.

Its what I do with every point of view I disagree with on a topic I'm interested i discussing on a discussion forum - seek clarification, further information, and so on.

I'm sorry if you find my trying to encourage discussion to be a superiority complex and/or intolerant, but I will once again point out that no-one has asked you to stop, merely to clarify and expand your points.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post, because not a single comment in it addresses the topic at hand - Its just more pleas for tolerance, making yoruself out to be the poor oppressed poster...again, from what I can see, purely and solely because a handful of posters didn't nod sagely at your comments and go "what a wise man", but rather said "I disagree, now convince me you've a sound argument" (paraphrased).

Maybe I'm slow, but I still can't understand how asking you to respond and clarify is intolerant of your point of view. If I was intolerant, surely I'd be asking you not to respond?

jc