seriously other then profiteering by Bush and his cronies this war was just unfinished business that Bush Sr. should of finished back in the day... had Bush Sr. taken out Sadaam back then there would be no issue about illegal war right now because he/we would be in compliance... he had every justification back then to dethrone Sadaam so to speak but he left him in power... back then the UN as a whole would of backed Bush Sr. if he took him out... not now though because Sadaam didn't try to invade or attack any country... perhaps when he and Chemical Ali attacked the Kurds in the North with chemical weapons we could of had justification to take him out as well under Genocide or something...
The great and all-powerful political thread!
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
LithiumLulu
Member
- Jul 17, 2007
- 207
- 0
- 16
Taking out Saddam would have exceeded the UN mandate that allowed the first Gulf War.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
True. I wasn't really talking about Chapter VII actions. There was a case called REPARATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE
OF THE UNITED NATIONS which was thought by certain authors to imply certain powers essential to the performance of the functions of the UN. http://www.u-paris2.fr/cij/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/iisunsummary490411.htm
This might have had certain implications related to Resolution 1441. I'm not sure what the latest on this is.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Possibly. It would have been a far more drastic step on the part of the US to establish itself as an occupying power, as it has done in the current war, then it would have had jurisdiction to pursue him as a war criminal.
Here's a question: Should the U.N. try to increase it's power, so as to be able to back up it's puny resolutions and regulations and what-not? If so, how?
I think that if the U.N. had more power this wouldn't have happened, or if it had there would be hell to pay. It pisses me off that the U.N. has little real power at all, when it should have the ability to take action. I think a possibility would be to be able to remove a head of power, like a president or prime minister, if they violates international law. Of course, other countries could use this to an advantage. It would make more sense to me to have the U.N. have it's own council or congress, and not have it's council made up of countries thinking only of their own benefit. I think the U.N. needs more power, but it has to remain neutral, it can't be allowed to be steered by one country or another for that countries own gain.
I think that if the U.N. had more power this wouldn't have happened, or if it had there would be hell to pay. It pisses me off that the U.N. has little real power at all, when it should have the ability to take action. I think a possibility would be to be able to remove a head of power, like a president or prime minister, if they violates international law. Of course, other countries could use this to an advantage. It would make more sense to me to have the U.N. have it's own council or congress, and not have it's council made up of countries thinking only of their own benefit. I think the U.N. needs more power, but it has to remain neutral, it can't be allowed to be steered by one country or another for that countries own gain.
ThisIsACoolName
Member
I hope there is a huge nuclear war that destroys almost the entire world. Not because I hate the world, but because I think it would be way, way cool to be a survivor and live in the post-apocalypse.
ThisIsACoolName
Member
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Only people in the desert of America will survive. Oh God, that means Mormons will take over America!
ThisIsACoolName
Member
challenge_everything
Active Member
How so? What could they do? Why did they choose not to? Was it because America is so powerful?
I have got to get the fuck out of this cuntry.
("Cuntry" was on purpose.)
I have got to get the fuck out of this cuntry.
("Cuntry" was on purpose.)
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
They would need to recommend military measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. Members of the UN would then be obliged to lend their armed forces to the disposal of the Security Council.
US and UK could not get enough votes in the Security Council from the permanent members.
The Heartbreak Kid
Afterimage
Some thoughts on Darfur.
After all the press, all the attention (At least in the U.S.) and all the stories... why in the FUCK is nothing being done?! I fucking hate the U.N. sometimes. Seriously, it was created to stop shit like this, and nothing is happening.
After all the press, all the attention (At least in the U.S.) and all the stories... why in the FUCK is nothing being done?! I fucking hate the U.N. sometimes. Seriously, it was created to stop shit like this, and nothing is happening.
LithiumLulu
Member
- Jul 17, 2007
- 207
- 0
- 16
Well.... it's totally corrupt for starters. And secondly, given the UN's recent track record in places like the Congo, do we really need to add them raping refugees to the problem?
But yea I'd really really REALLY like to see something done about the situation in Darfur.
LithiumLulu
Member
- Jul 17, 2007
- 207
- 0
- 16
Well.... it's totally corrupt for starters. And secondly, given the UN's recent track record in places like the Congo, do we really need to add them raping refugees to the problem?
But yea I'd really really REALLY like to see something done about the situation in Darfur.
It's shocking to think that the awareness has pretty much been raised, and yet not a bit of action has been taken as far as I can tell.
Similar threads
