UN legitimacy, effectiveness of protest, our role as "invaders"

Posted 4/6/2003 by laramie, laramie@b-rant.com


Check this out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ It is the charter of the UN. It very clearly states that the purpose of the UN is to avoid war, and acts of aggression. The US has committed an un-provoked act of aggression. This is *very different* from '91 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the UN *approved* action, since Hussein was the aggressor.

I believe that it is only the Bush Administration that is the source of the comments that the UN is "irrelevant". Personally, I feel the UN could not be more relevant. To ignore the will of the people of the world, who (if you read the foreign press) are outraged against us, would be in violation of the spirit and charter of the UN.

Check out: Dr. Robert Mueller, former assistant S.G of the U.N. -- The legitimacy of the U.N./The legitimacy of war

If the general assembly of the UN voted that the U.S. acted illegally in its unilateral invasion, I don't really think Bush would be able to ignore it completely.

Back during Vietnam, Nixon said he ignored the anti-war protesters. Years later, it came out that they were actually planning on using Nukes in Vietnam on a certain date, but that the rising level of anti-war action at home convinced them that this was a bad idea.

Every day we are invaders, we drive more and more people to sign up to be future bin Ladens. Every day we bomb, we kill more innocent civilians and destroy more Iraqi infrastructure and imperil more lives through the lack of food, water, electricity. Every day we stay as invaders in Iraq, we chance pissing off more and more of the population, who are anti-Hussein, but also anti-invader. Many, many Iraqis say that they will hate the US just as much if we stay as the British did after 1915, and as Hussein did with our support in the 1980's. This is a very clear message I have gotten from people I've met who have visited Iraq lately, though these reporters and visitors are not given time on CNN, so you may not hear too much about them.

Bush, by the way, still says he has legal justification for the war because he is enforcing the UN resolution 1441. He can't have it both ways -- enforce one resolution but ignore another. Actually 1441 says that the UN retains the right to enforce it. He's ignored that part.

See also: U.N. Treaties, including the Geneva Conventions
U.N. Security Council Resolutions by year, including resolution 1441 from 2002.


[home]   [sign guestbook]   [rant!]