The UN... So much for that then. - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

**The UN... So much for that then. -** 03-24-03

The UN could have prevented this war, or at the very least have delayed matters until a peaceful resolution was agreed upon. The fact that the moment Bush said he's waging war they pulled out. If they had stayed there is no way Bush would have bombed Baghdad. He could not have. The purpose of the UN peace corps is to KEEP peace, why did they pull out and allow the bombing? Even though they oppose the war.

Starface · 03-24-03

That's pretty obvious you answered it yourself actually...if they had the power to stop it but didn't then deep down inside...

Corporate Pig · **Re: The UN... So much for that then. -** 03-24-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lillith
The UN could have prevented this war, or at the very least have delayed matters until a peaceful resolution was agreed upon. The fact that the moment Bush said he's waging war they pulled out. If they had stayed there is no way Bush would have bombed Baghdad. He could not have. The purpose of the UN peace corps is to KEEP peace, why did they pull out and allow the bombing? Even though they oppose the war.

And how is the UN going to directly STOP the US ?
The US even pointed this out, that the UN cant enforce Iraq and Israel among many, many countries, to obey all its resolutions.

I see it as, the UN were presented with an option;
Stay in Iraq, and become potential victims in this war of 'agression', or clear out - allow the US to bomb the country, and then deal with the US during the aftermath thru the ICC and Geneva convention.

This is a WAR OF AGGRESSION

Quote:

Alain Pellet, a former head of the U.N. International Law Commission, said in a Le Monde commentary published Saturday that the U.S.-British attack on Iraq is a "war of aggression" as defined in U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314.
In the resolution, passed in 1974, the world body's members said the use by a state of unprovoked armed force in violation of the U.N. Charter "constitutes sufficient proof" of "an act of aggression." Citing that text and others, Pellet called "aggression" the "only juridically correct term" for U.S. actions.
Pellet said self-defense and Security Council decisions are the only justifications for war under the charter and that neither applies to the current situation in Iraq. He said Security Council Resolution 1441, which is among those the United States has invoked in justifying its campaign, "does not say and does not imply that any state whatsoever, even the most powerful, can claim for itself the right to determine unilaterally that Iraq has once again failed to fulfill its obligations and set off as it wishes the 'serious consequences' with which that country was rightly threatened if it continued to defy the international community."
Pellet also criticized France for allowing U.S. planes to fly over its territory. "One does not cooperate, even passively, with an aggressor," he wrote (Alain Pellet, Le Monde, March 22, UN Wire translation)..

http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/current.asp#32753

03-24-03

Yes.. yes, I understand, what I meant was... If they physically stayed put in direct protest to this war, Bush could not have bombed. Can you imagine the total chaos if he bombed a city where UN representatives were staying put in???? If he deliberately killed UN Peace Corps?!!

Feroluce · 03-25-03

They've killed UN peace corps before in both Bosnia and in the first Gulf war.

I'll try and dig up some links.

As for the ICC and the Geneva convention, Bush has recinded on signing both, right about the time he pulled out ot the Nuclear proliferation treaty (you know the one that he is uppity with Korea about breaking?)

03-25-03

Oh wow, deliberately or accidently? As they have already killed each other with "friendly fire"?

And as for the last bit, I forgot about that! That is incredible isn't it, no reprimandment for Bush but behold anyone else dare to do exactly what he has done.

I just don't get the logic of it, I don't get the lack of conscience in these games men play with people's lives. How can we possibly have hope for the future of the human race?

Basically then, even if the UN intended on remaining they had to realize it was suicide, and thus pulled out, no?

Feroluce · 03-25-03

It was "friendly fire" (what a stupid phrase).

They've also taken out the red cross on occasion.

I'm finding it difficult to track a link down, all my searches bring up the British plane the US shot out of the sky over the weekend and the British news crew they took out around the same time.

It seems old news has been superceeded..

Corporate Pig · 03-25-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lillith
...And as for the last bit, I forgot about that! That is incredible isn't it, no reprimandment for Bush but behold anyone else dare to do exactly what he has done.

I just don't get the logic of it, I don't get the lack of conscience in these games men play with people's lives. How can we possibly have hope for the future of the human race?

Basically then, even if the UN intended on remaining they had to realize it was suicide, and thus pulled out, no?

Lillith, good thoughts...
The Bush move with pulling out of the nuckear non-profli. treaty, I see it as typical American superitory complex.
The American government in its acts surrounding the ICC, the UN itself, always ignores many treaty's world wide, claiming it is somehow 'above' these.

And the pre-emptive wars now... the US gov't works on an idea of Guilty, until you can prove yourself inncoent.
Hence with Iraq it made the statement, 'its not our job to prove you have the weapons, you have to prove that you dont have the weapons'.

Its amazing how these things come out of country which TRIES to pride itself on being democratic - and aint that a joke... closer these days to Fascism. Where's your constituational rights to freedom of expression; gone with the Patriot Act of 2001. And do I need to reflect on the farce of the election which Bush rigged and cheated on.

A War such as that being run in Iraq at the moment, is being fought for one reason: Imperialist Capitalistic ambitions to control and rule the world.

Dyshade · **Re: The UN... So much for that then. -** 03-25-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lillith
The UN could have prevented this war, or at the very least have delayed matters until a peaceful resolution was agreed upon. The fact that the moment Bush said he's waging war they pulled out. If they had stayed there is no way Bush would have bombed Baghdad. He could not have. The purpose of the UN peace corps is to KEEP peace, why did they pull out and allow the bombing? Even though they oppose the war.

they only could have prevented this war by prosecuting thier own proclamations of both disarmement and humane treatment...... they did not..... Saddam laughed at thier proclamations just as he has laughed at the Geneva Convention.... the UN is led by the French.... the French were enjoying all of that cheap oil they were getting just by giving Saddam his war toys...... of course they did not want us to goto war..... same goes for the Russians..... this spoils thier little oil party......