US used "false pretext" to invade Iraq in 2003, ElBaradei says

Middle East News
Nov 2, 2009, 16:28 GMT

New York - Outgoing UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei criticized the United States on Monday for using a 'false pretext' to invade Iraq, costing 'the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.'

US President George W Bush ordered US troops into Iraq in March 2003 to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein, citing evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in that country. No such weapons were found after the invasion.

ElBaradei is stepping down from the top position at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna after 12 years and felt less constraint in criticizing the US. He said Iraq and North Korea were two cases of suspected nuclear proliferation in the 1990s.

'I will always lament the fact that a tragic war was launched in Iraq,' he said in a last address to the UN General Assembly.

'This was done on the basis of false pretext, without the authorization of the UN Security Council,' he said.

He said the IAEA and UN weapons inspectors had found 'no evidence' that Iraq's nuclear programmes involved production of weapons of mass destruction.

'It gives me no consolation that the agency (IAEA)'s findings were subsequently vindicated,' he said, implying that the US military campaign in Iraq had caused high civilians casualties.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had condemned the US invasion of Iraq as 'illegal' because it was not authorized by the 15-nation council.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/m...-ElBaradei-says

You don't say.

Quite amazing and in a twisted way, amusing that this truth is even debated about anymore.

(holds breath for Bush Admin's defenders to flood the thread)

if Bush was wrong, SO WAS EVERYONE ELSE, since they were all saying the same things. But you lying scumbags keep on lying.....

If you mean the Senate and Congress and Tony Blair's government and the Australian government, yes, they were lying through their teeth, planning on going in to kill innocent civilians, to secure oil.

And is that so surprising when you look at the atrocities of the past, like the Boer war, where they rounded up the people and put them in concentration camps and poisoned them and gave them disease and killed them all off to secure the diamond baring lands of South Africa.

Or what they did to India, when it was conquered, or how they gave small pox infested blankets to the Indians, to kill them off like rats, or dropping not one, atomic bomb, but 2, on two cities at the end of WWII.

These people and these types of people are no stranger to mass slaughter of innocent people. What on earth ever gave you the idea they had consciences or any sort of humanity at all?
Because they are very very good bald faced liars?

People are easily fooled. Just wear a white hat and hey you have fooled them all right there.

But this and but that, there is no excuse. At the time the Kurds were killed off with gas, Cheney was having his photo taken shaking hands with Saddam in one of his palaces.

Just search Cheney and Saddam and you will find all sorts of dealings between these two, as his head of Haliburton, and also in his role in government.

You see rather than be surprised that they have the capacity for mass murder, you should be surprised that the UN exists at all in a world like this. As a political organization it is powerless, that was proven in the illegal invasion of a sovereign country by the so called good guys, America, Australia and Britain, who coerced other countries into sharing the blame. The UN is a charitable organization and that is about all it is.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you (after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws) to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

So now the Democrats say Bush lied, that there never were any WMD's and that he took us to war for his oil buddie's???
Who is it really doing the lying?
Fuqqin' hypocrites.

Well you know its an oil economy, so don't look for truth coming out of governments that are heavily reliant on oil.

Keep in mind, that this was the second time Iraq was invaded, his daddy invaded it the first time, when Saddam went into Kuwait.

Now why did Saddam go in and invade Kuwait, then leave?

Kuwait was cross drilling, drilling on an angle into Iraqi oil fields and were caught.

But you didn't hear that part from the Bush admin did you?

No, you heard about the dictator Saddam, invading his peaceful neighbors.

Then there was an embargo, and that embargo was never lifted.

He could not fart inside Iraq without some intel agency smelling it. They watched everything via satellite constantly and even spies in Saddam's own government since they are so easily bought.

It was all orchestrated with Saddam as the fall guy.
The millions of innocent people who suffered and died over the years because of it, would be just collateral damage to these people.

You know when some Iraqi's were heading home after raiding Kuwait, that was when they attacked that row of vehicles with incendiary bombs and fried them all in cold blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

But is that any different than the Mai Lai massacre? Colin Powel was there involved with that one.

You know, what can you say. Bad people have risen to the top, not like cream, but like scum on a cess pool.

I mean look at Colin Powell, he tried to cover up the Mai Lai massacre, and [censored] Cheney probably sold the gas to Saddam that killed the Kurds, do they look evil? Are they evil?

They don't look evil. They don't sound evil. They seem like ordinary people. Look at Congress, look at the Senate, do they look evil?
What about George W Bush? What a fun loving laughing good hearted moron. Does he seem evil?

Yet somehow, all this evil comes about.

Its just an evil world I guess with a lot of good will and good hearted people in it, who are powerless to change it.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had condemned the US invasion of Iraq as 'illegal' because it was not authorized by the 15-nation council .

So what? The UN isn't the boss of America.

Who is everyone else?? I recall a lot of people telling Bush that this was a mistake, yet he didn't listen.



Don't forget Don Rumsfeld. He was the one who "delivered" the WMDs to Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war.




If the US doesn't keep to UN laws, which they agreed to obey and protect, then why should the rest of the world?
That would mean that all those Human rights violations that are going on around the world are perfectly legal. There was no need to intervene in the Balkan Genocide.
Is that what you want?

Actually it is.
It's supposed to be higher than (or at least equal to) any individual country.
The problem is the U.S. thinks it's the boss of everybody and everything.

Gawd, you're really out there. If you think the UN is 'boss' of the USA or any other country, you're really out of the loop. Off the planet, so to speak. It's leftist talk like tat, that makes me detest left wingers more than the nuts on the right.

Most every country in this world is a sovereign nation and not a subject of the UN.

No.

EVERY nation that is part of the UN and who signs UN contracts, participates, and vowes to protect UN law is indeed subject to UN/International Law.

That includes the US, Britain, Germany, Ghana, Japan, etc.

So yes, in a sense, the US is subject to the UN council since it agreed to be that way.

The best thing is that Bush tried to justify his war by talking of Genocide, Human Right's violations, etc. and now it comes out that nobody gives 2 sh!ts about the UN.
THAT's Hypocrisy!

I actually agree with Tex on this one - to a point. For the most part I couldn't care less what the UN thinks. Like every other (individual) country in the world, the UN plays by its own politics. That's not to say that they're not right sometimes, but more and more they are acting like they know more about how to deal with the internal workings of indidual countries than do those same individual countries. Methinks they just like being the world's morality police.

Now having said that, in the case of Dubya (y'all) and the lead-up to Iraq, the UN was right. And anyone with a brain cell should be able to see that. Iraq was based on lies and legitmized by 9/11 (or so said Dubya (y'all) and Dumbass (Cheney)). But even though the UN may have been right then, so was everyone else who spoke out against what Dubya (y'all) was doing. Again the UN was just playing politics.

Thanks, ILH. AT least you're being honest about the UN.

Bubbles, if the UN had it's way, we'd have no guns here. We're a sovereign nation and their laws/treaties regarding things like that mean nothing.

we has been over and over this point a number of times.................... but as few of you seem to still not understand the rule of law................... let's go over the point once more.

there are only a few legal ways to war.............. a provable act of self-defence. (as in the first Iraq war) or at the request of the UN Council (as in the Koran war) G.W.Bush did not follow any of these paths to war but said 9/11 altered the world so much he did not need the UN Council's request to go to war plus America was above the rule of international law.

No nation is above the rule of law............... not America, not Britain nor any other nation who sent fighters to Iraq to kill in G.W.Bush's name ................... if any nation go's to war out side the UN's request or in the act of self-defence, it become a WAR CRIME.

You appaer to be in favor of a one-world governemtt. The UN is irrelevant. Period.

Of the 191 nations in the United Nations only about 40 percent (85 countries) are democratic societies that enjoy political rights and civil liberties. The rest are either controlled by dictators or by a one-party government.

In 48 of the nations, dictators wield an iron hand. Thirty-five per cent of the world's population is subjugated by those totalitarian governments. Fifty-nine other countries are controlled by one-party governments in which institutions like the judiciary and the press are not free from government influence or control.

One country with a population of 23 million, which has a free government, is a pariah nation, not allowed entry into the United Nations: Taiwan. So I ask whether an institution such as the United Nations in which dictatorships outnumber democracies should be looked up to as a moral exemplar.

The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.

The UN seeks power to control the environment, population, children...the world. Both the 1972 UN Environmental Program and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development laid plans to whip up widespread environmental concerns (some exaggerated, many completely fabricated). These concerns would then be used as justification for increasing UN authority on environmental issues. The statements and publications of these UN programs leave little doubt that their goal is a world government with the power to cancel national sovereignty, regulate economic activity, and control the human race all, of course, under the banner of "protecting the environment." In late 1994, UN planners meeting in Egypt approved a 20-year, $17 billion plan to "stabilize" the world's population. The UN's goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, sterilization, and controlled human breeding. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also claims power not only to grant rights but also to cancel them "as provided by law." It claims that governments must guarantee children "freedom of expression ... freedom to seek, receive, and impart information ... freedom of thought, conscience, and religion," regardless of the wishes of their parents.

The UN Charter outlines the path to world tyranny. After giving lip service about not intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ...," the UN Charter continues, "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if these are decided to "be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the pretext for its armed intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and Haiti.

The UN is building its own army to enforce its will. In 1992, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, fulfilling a directive from the UN Security Council, unveiled An Agenda for Peace, a plan to strengthen UN "peacekeeping" capabilities. The plan calls for armed forces to be made available to the UN "on a permanent basis." It ominously warns, "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed" and proceeds to name a long list of "risks for stability" that would be used to justify use of the "permanent" UN army to enforce its will. Incredibly, U.S. leaders are using America's military to pave the way for this UN army. In Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere, foreign UN commanders have controlled our troops. When 15 Americans were killed over Iraq in mid-1994, Vice-President Gore extended condolences "to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations." Even more incredibly, it has been the official policy of the U.S. government since 1961 to disarm America and create a UN army. This policy concludes: "progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force." (See State Department publication 7277: Freedom >From War.)

The UN doesn't settle disputes - it makes them worse! Our ambassador to the UN in 1982, although a UN supporter, admitted, "The UN has become an arena in which countries are drawn into problems they might never have become involved in. " Ask yourself: Should Seychelles or Benin or Guyana or Barbados have to take sides in a clash that breaks out on the opposite side of the world? When centuries-old animosities erupt in the former Yugoslavia, why does the UN inject its presence with troops, blockades, bombing, and a parade of speeches? American troops serving as globocops for the UN become targets for criminals and terrorists. In 1983, 241 U.S. Marines were blown to bits at the Beirut airport. Five years later, a U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel was kidnapped and eventually murdered by Arab terrorists while in a UN unit in Lebanon (he was unarmed - as required by the UN). The UN "peacekeeping mission" in Somalia cost the lives of another 36 Americans in 1993.

The UN ignores Communist atrocities but targets non-Communist nations and leaders. When Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in the 1950s, when the Chinese Communists were murdering Tibetans in the 1960s, when the Soviets were butchering civilians in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s, the UN did nothing! But the UN declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace" in the 1960s, enabling pro-communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. And it was a UN-led campaign that brought self-described Communist and convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa in the 1990s.

The UN embraces Communist China - history's most murderous criminal regime. In 1949, anti-Communist Nationalist China, one of the UN's founding members, was forced from the mainland to Taiwan by the Communists. In 1971, the UN expelled Taiwan and embraced the brutal Red Chinese government - a government responsible for over 35 million murders. When the vote admitting Red China was announced, UN delegates danced in the aisles to show their contempt for America and their joy at the triumph of Red China.

The UN is a moral cesspool filled with perverts. In 1988, the top Belgian UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) official was one of a group convicted of running a child sex ring. Moral bankruptcy is commonplace in UN operations. In Zimbabwe, UNICEF-donated equipment helped terrorists seize power. In Vietnam, the Communists received $13 million from UNICEF while untold thousands of boat people fled for their lives. Fat cats? UN employees are paid 40% more than comparable U.S. workers and have subsidized rent. An ex-UNICEF official confirmed that "pampered and cosseted staffs" of various aid agencies "absorb 80% of all UN expenditures."

America supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted enemies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations "aided" grow worse. U.S. taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not surprising since these agencies were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes.) Socialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly described the IMF as "in essence a Socialist conception." World Bank "aid" funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea. Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN's foreign aid programs tend "to prop up incompetent governments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their own."

The UN is a war organization, NOT a peace organization. Article 42 of the UN Charter claims authority to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." But the UN definition of "peace" is never given. Tyrannical regimes throughout history have defined "peace" as the absence of all opposition. To achieve "peace" in Katanga in 1961, UN planes bombed hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and private homes. Katanga was an anti-Communist province of the Belgian Congo seeking freedom from the Communist-controlled central government. The UN is not now, and has never been, a peace organization. It will use whatever military power it is given to force all nations of the world to submit.

so if that's the case why is there a debate about it? He's guilty going by that logic.

I get hit with accusations of obsession with Obama. This guy is obsessed with Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just a thought: if the UN has no authority over the U.S. and therefore the U.S. can do whatever it pleases...

...why can't Iran???

What moral authority does the UN have over a sovereign nation as to require it to comply with weapons inspections and all that, if the most important member nation pretty much wipes it's ass with it?

________________

You see here how problems cannot be solved by the system. There might be noble ideals, but if they are only a matter of personal (or national) opinion, they're worthless.

I'd prefer if the UN just stayed out of everyone's business. They are not a country but yet they act like they rule the world. I mean, no I don't particularly want to see Iran have a nuke. But if they do, so what? America has nukes. Russia has nukes... Which countries that do or don't have nukes mean nothing to me. What does mean something is, what happens if one of those countries decides to use it. That's when the real decisions have to be made and actions taken. And at that point the UN won't be any position to decide anything.

The US does what it want pretty much as it is. So do lots of rogue nations like N. Korea. The UN is a debate society and useless. The only thing they do good is humanitarian issues. And even at that, they're kinda shitty at.

My point is national sovereignty... and i mean everyone, not just us here. Ultimately, a nation can do what it wishes. No organization like the UN has a right to tell one what to do. I don't give a rats ass about the arguments of 'international law' and all that. Until the UN slobberers can make a case against the really horrible regimes and the things they do, then i'll listen. They ignore everything else it seems.

The International Court or World Court, is just for arbitration.

That is they can be used to solve disputes between two states or give advice.

They have no power to prosecute anyone, like the USA, or its government, so it is really not any sort of real law court.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3

Tell that to Cable2. He lives and breathes by that sham court like it's the ruling body of law. He'll be disappointed to find out that they're moot like the UN.

because we are

Ha ha!

I'll take that as sarcasm or light-hearted humor. Hopefully you don't really believe it as fact.

I'm glad we finally agree on something. But back to the main topic, which was that Bush did use false pretenses in order to invade Iraq. He lied. But it wasn't for the UN to decide that. Or to even have an opinion about it for that matter.

you come running and screaming for our help, you get the flip side of it too Junior

You know what happened to the innocent Nazi bystanders when daddy called Indiana Jones "Junior", right?

Beware of my wrath!!!

heh, a tiny insignificant little invisible bug will soon have you all to your knees. Resistance is futile.

THANK YOU!

The UN doesn't have power over everybody, but when you agree to play by the UN's rules, then you have to play by them.
You hold other countries responsible for breaking those rules, yet you go and decide that UN rules are not important at all when it applies to yourself. How is that fair? Or even logical?



So you'd rather wait for Iran to nuke Israel off the map and THEN make a decision of what has to be done?
That kind of thinking did the US some real good. Examples that come to mind are 9/11 and Hurricane Kathrina.

You can't worry about a problem after it already occured, you have to think ahead.

And the only way you can honestly prevent Iran from having Nukes is by actually obeying UN law yourself.



The UN is a bunch of paperbeaters and they've proven to be terrible at even basic humanitarian issues. Rwanda & Darfur come to mind.

The UN is not there to take away each country's sovereignty, it's there to protect the world from greater harm. Like you said, the UN is a debate society that debate on what should be done and how it should be done. Most of the time, countries decide that it's in their best interest to not act at all, which is clearly not what the UN is about.



That's not what it's about. International law has been used by many countries to impose bans or even start wars. Human rights abuses and other humanitarian offenses come to mind.



Let me just throw this one in there for everybody to consider:


The trade embargo on Cuba is put in place because:

"The government of Fidel Castro has demonstrated consistent disregard for internationally accepted standards of human rights and for democratic values. It restricts the Cuban people's exercise of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and other rights recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. It has refused to admit into Cuba the representative of the United Nations Human Rights Commission appointed to investigate human rights violations on the island."

This is from this website:

"http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992.html"

So, a trade embargo that was originally put in place because of Human Rights violations WHICH WERE PUT IN PLACE AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN 1948, is completely justified, right?

Then how come the US can choose to ignore other such Human Rights violations and even go as far as calling the UN unncessary and Anti-American.

THAT's utter, utter hypocrisy.

You call them anti-American and useless, but then you turn around and use THEIR LAWS as justification for a trade embargo.

So, you make a decision:

Either you abandon the UN and therefore all the invasions, embargos, etc. that were put in place because of Human Rights violations, or you keep to the UN law, which the US helped to right and swore to uphold, and you keep to ALL of them, not just the ones that fit your agenda.

So, as TEx would say:


Bwa hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

In the immortal words of Bruce "Don't call me Ash" Campbell:

"Ain't in charge of but 2 things, Jack and Shit, and Jack left town."

"a one-world governemtt" more Bush pointless bullsh!t spewed out in the build up to the UN Council vote on Iraq......... he knew his request for war would be vetoed

and no I am not in favor of "a one-world governemtt" I am in favor of the rule of law.............. you might have remembered that concept............. it was once held dear by America until G.W.Bush p'ssed on it, with his Illegal wars and world wind network of torture camps................ until large numbers of Americans went to any lengths to defend the criminality of Bush's acts.

you me old mate may not like the highest international court on eath but your goverment is as we type useing it's veto in that high court to protect Israel......... as America has used it's veto in UN Countcil to protect Israel for the last 60 years.

you wag your head over the actions of the UN in the last 60 years......... but the thing you kindly forget is that all actions by the UN had been voted for by America for no action in the name of the UN with out the whole of the UN Council voting for that action........... so your UN head wag must be as much against your own government as it is against the UN it's self.

as a UN Council member America has had over 60 years to work for a change in the rules governing to UN.......... but it has not........ in fact America has found the rules governing the UN very useful in it's war with Russia......... it has only been when UN has not done what America wanted has America wagged it's head.

I for one know that the way the UN was set up by America was not fair but until the rules are changed it is legal............ and it is the law which is important........ and just as important is the way to change those laws.

the reason why we here on this Celeb fan site debate it.............. in fact the reason why the world still debates it.............. is cos America, Britain the like have done every thing they can to keep it out of Court............ any court............... if you remember G.W.Bush destroyed the ICC and turned into the toothless tiger we have now......... cos he said he did not want Americans tried for political reasons and he would send in the marines if Europe where to arrest Americans on war crimes.

the debate will carry on until Bush and his followers do stand before an international court of law to answer to the unlawful deaths of over a million men women and children.

What I meant was that Israel is a sovereign nation and if Iran actually did threaten them, I would hope that Israel would take care of their own business. Of course it would be best if it didn't come to that but it's hypocritcal for anyone else to say that one country can't have something while others can. Besides if Iran actually did attack Israel, Iran would get blown off the map. Iran knows it too. So again, in that regard the UN is totally useless.

Yes we know G.W.Bush destroyed the ICC but as we also know it is not only nations with in the EEC which have the right to try war crimes committed outside their state........... as we also know Italy Span and Indonesia are as we type are all undertaking investigations into Bush's war crimes

as for the UN being moot......... mayhap you would like to tell Korea that war it under went in the name of the UN was just a joke

or mayhap you would like to tell Israel that the last 60 years of UN protection was also just a joke

and when parts of the world who did come running when Bush was screaming for their help......... have found themselves locked into a number of un-winnable wars with their death toll forever growing

Iran would definitely have the upper hand in a US-Iran war. Matter of fact, I believe Iran could end that war within a couple of weeks, if not days.

I understand your point now. It's true that the fact that it is up to nations like Britain and the US to decide who can have nukes and who can't is very...let's call it unfair. But the fact is that, like Tex said, the UN is a debate society and if a country wants to create Nukes, then they're free to present the case to the UN.
If Iran wouldn't have such hostile ties to Israel, then they'd be allowed to have them.
If N. Korea wouldn't have so many enemies in the world, they'd be allowed to have them too.
But the fact is that as long as these countries have hostile relations with other countries, the world is a better place without them having Nukes.

Btw, Germany is still not allowed to own Nuclear weapons because of WWII and we don't complain about it. Just throwing that in there.

No defense on this point from the UN critics on here?