Officer of Engineers

I'm not sure what you're trying to state here. The Act by itself states very clearly where the authority for war came from. Note closely to the language. They've listed every reason under the sun that they can think of but the actual authority was clearly stated by those UN Resolutions.

You mean revisionism? Welcome to the club. It's human nature and I don't think you will find a war in history that does not suffer from it.

And you will note that there is not even a debate on the issue. Not one of the P5 is forcing a clarification. Sure the US and the UK might veto such a clarification but not one of the P5 wants to permanently delete this tool from their war chest.

The Iraq War may not be legal but it is definitely not illegal. Illegal as in defined by the UNSC and the UNSC will not declare the war illegal mainly because of the US and UK veto but also neither France, Russia, nor China want their hands bind in the future by the UNSC.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

That is not the point.

The point is that the UN did not sanction the Iraq War and therefore it was not a UN sponsored action.

It was solely a US and COW enterprise. And it is said in media reports that many pulled out of the COW since the promises to share the bonanza was not met!

Hence, why should the UN pull the COW chestnuts out of the fire?!

It would never pass the veto stage if UN were to condemn the Iraq War!

Morality is a question of perception and so it is difficult to pin anyone on that one. However, since the majority of the world are not of the opinion that this War is justified on the reasons trotted out, the morality issue can be assumed.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

The reasons given for the War on Terror as per State of Union address are:

Iraq had WMD

Iraq was linked to AQ

Freedom and Democracy had to be brought to Iraq.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

My apologies for the delayed reply but I've got plumbing problems.

Sir, forgive my cynicism but what difference would that have made? The best UN action to date was UNPROFOR and Srebrenicia is the result of that disaster. Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia-Eritrea, and even Afghanistan all saw the Blue Beret and these countries were a bigger disaster than before the UN came in.

Sir, I'm sorry. Please do forgive me. The UN pull chestnuts out of the fire? Sir, the UN could not run fast enough. Had it not been for the men like Jetley and Dallaire, the UN would have been shown the moral cowards that they really are and I don't mean the member states. I mean the bureaucrats such as Annan.

Sir, handling Iraq is beyond the UN. As bad as things are right now, they are nowhere close to what UN mismanagement could curtail. Yes, the militias are taking their toll but what's happening now ain't nothing when compared to full blown armies engaging each other in a civil war that frankly would've rival the Mongol Wars of old.

It's politically correct to say the UN should have been involved from the beginning but the sad truth is the UN is thankful that it's not. Just look how far the UN REMFs are avoiding Iraq.

Sadly Sir, as much as everybody likes to condemn the US for the actions within the UN, truth be told, they all want that power or in the case of the P5, to keep it. Neither France, Russia, nor China are pushing for a legal clarification of the American stance on their UN Authority to attack Iraq and you will note, Sir, that Annan had been told to shut the hell up by those 3.

Ray

Ah well.

Won't like to bring in the UN between your ideas and mine!

Amled

Thank you VERY much, sir!
For saying something that should have been obvious to one and all.
Here the UN bureaucrat who was responsible for overseeing all UN peacekeeping at the time of the R’wanda genocide.
Instead of putting his all prestige and any power his office held behind an effort to stop the slaughter, he sat on his hands.
Reward: made Sec.Gen. of the United Nations.

My apologies for going off topic!

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

chankya

Did anyone read about the "war czar" with sweeping power over governmental agencies?

What do you guys think about the idea?

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

Amled

The fact that no one seems interested in assuming the position, does lead one to think that it is a Uriah position.
Reports have it that a number of the US’s leading military figures have politely said thanks, but no thanks!

chankya

From what i can gather, the postion would carry with it quite sweeping power over civilian departments and agencies too. Even with the best of intentions I think its a dangerous idea and risks setting undesirable precedents.

Oh and thanks for that "Uriah" comment. I just googled it up. You learn something new everyday.

Amled

Glad to be of help!
For myself I usually learn something new every time I come to this forum, one of the reasons it is so compelling!

Grim

Well I like idea behind of the poll but I did not vote as I did not like either choice. I feel the poll would have been better if it had at lest a third choice.
I wonder what the results would have been if choice 3 was in favor of a new system of mandatory service for all politicians in time of war. Such as but not restricted to, any politician who votes for war and then votes to withhold funding for the same war is immediately sent to sever 2 years of front line duty.
As for historically speaking on the topic of leaders in battle I am reminded of the Battle of Flodden Field 1513 between England and Scotland. The results amounted to defeat for Scotland and the death of the Scottish King and his son, 9 Earls, 14 Lords of Parliament, and 7 Highland Chiefs. One might say this is a fine example on how to lose a war in one battle.

Battle of Flodden Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ray

Amled,

It is not obvious to all.

It is the Colonel's viewpoint.

One has to understand how the UN Forces operate.

Ask him what happened to Maj Gen Jaitly!

Notwithstanding, here is an account of UN in operations:

Operation Khukri, Sierra Leone - Vayu Sena

Bluesman

Grim, that seems a terrific support for NOT sending the political class to war.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Ray

Here is the obstruction that govt have to weather:
BBC News | UK POLITICS | 'Pull UK troops out of Sierra Leone'

Some issues of UN in Seirra Leone that one could judge upon:

Sierra Leone News Archives - September 2000 - Sierra Leone Web

Note the national politics that come into play and how the UN can do nothing about that!

Report by Maj Gen V Jaitly

Report on the Crisis in Sierra Leone - Major-General Vijay Kumar Jetley, May 2000 - Sierra Leone Web

Amled,

This is conditions in which the UN Forces have to operate.


One has to serve with the UN to realise how not only the Big 5 screws up the Mission, but also the countries involved in the Mission.

How do I know?

I was to be the UN Commander in Somalia!

A good thing that we wound up the mission and Indians returned.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

The General was allowed to resign his command and the Nigerians were not sad to see him go. It just galls me, Sir, that the General saved the UN's butt and restored UN credibility at enforcing the peace only to have New York p!ss it away to please the Nigerian diamond smugglers who happened to wear a uniform.

What also shock me was the lack of support the General got from New Dehli. At the very least, a note of protest if not a threat of withdrawl of the only combat capable contingent in the whole country.

And Sir, Kofi Annan was at an amusement park when all this happened.