Tony Blair's donation to the Royal British Legion ( Archived) (114)

Iuchi_Zien:
You have me there, I assumed that the United Nation actually understood English, the words vote and veto are not the same, unless, apparently you operate from within in the United Nations.

UNSC: Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

Iuchi_Zien:
I see little point in continuing to discuss the subject with somebody throwing out insults.

Iuchi_Zien:
You obviously have made your mind up and will continue to try to say grey is a version of black. If I want to be insulted, I'll let rabiestree do it. As far as I am concerned Mr Blair is a lying scumbag and the war in Iraq was illegal, I've seen your evidence to the contrary and it doesn't impress me if that is a problem for you, well, just suck it up!

Iuchi_Zien: Tony Blairs lies

Iuchi_Zien: The documents you have put forward have not changed my views because in my opinion they add nothing new to the discussion.

UN Charter has nothing to do with the discussion huh? Why do I sense you are out of your league.



It does though. You said that she said that Tony said that France threatened to veto a second resolution and I showed that in the UN, by their own rules, a negative or absention by one of the five permanent members is a considered a veto.



When it is proven he actually did then you will know that I do or don't.





Article 45 See above.

Iuchi_Zien: Article 50. Self Defence, you are honestly trying to say that the US felt that its OWN security was being threatened by Iraq?

In response to: Heritage Foundation
International law confirms the right to self-defense . The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law, which recognizes that sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves from attack, and the United Nations Charter, which reflects that law. Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

That right to self-defense also incorporates the centuries-old principle of "anticipatory self-defense" in the face of an imminent threat to national security. In the 16th century, the British applied that principle when they attacked Spanish and Portuguese ports in anticipation of an attack by the Spanish Armada. The United States used it more recently in placing an embargo on Cuba to prevent Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles there.

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has stated publicly his intention to engage in a war against the West, particularly Israel and the United States. He seeks to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear WMD and the ability to deploy them against his enemies. The U.S. government has identified Iraq as an imminent threat, justifying military action in anticipation of an attack.

America does not need U.N. permission to use its armed forces. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization a veto over U.S. actions otherwise lawful and fully in accordance with the Constitution.

America has permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

U.S.-led forces in the Persian Gulf War accomplished the first objective swiftly, but the second has never been achieved. U.S. and allied air forces have been in nearly constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was repelled. Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against and in Iraq remains in effect. Further, Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate is a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement--a clear indication that peace has never been achieved.

In response to: America would be acting in the interests of international peace and security, as all U.N. members pledge to do. Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." Saddam Hussein is the single greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. He started two wars in the region, continues to support terrorism, and poses a clear and ongoing threat to the United States and the region. He has shown no compunction about using chemical weapons, either against his own people or during the war with Iran. His willingness to use them in the past illustrates the threat he poses should he gain access to more devastating WMD and the means to convey them to his enemies.

Iuchi_Zien: This was regime change and regime change is not allowed under UN rules.

Iuchi_Zien:
I assume the intelligence services were lying as well?

Haiti & Ivory Coast: The authorization of "all necessary measures" under Resolution 1529 probably is not exactly the same as the authorization of "all necessary means" under other resolutions, such as Resolution 678, where the focus was on armed force. That was the focus when -- just two days before the Security Council adopted Resolution 1529 -- it authorized French forces in Côte D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) to use "all necessary means" to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission, including intervention against belligerents (Resolution 1528 (2004)). It was also the focus in 1994 when the Security Council adopted Resolution 940, authorizing a multinational force to use "all necessary means" to restore democracy in Haiti (an operation that ironically restored Aristide's presidency after he had been in exile).

Congo: it did authorize the U.N. Secretary-General to "take all necessary action" to effectuate the withdrawal of Belgian troops from the Congo (Resolution 145 (1960)), while reaffirming that ONUC would not intervene in the outcome of any internal conflict (Resolution 146 (1960)).

Somalia: When anarchy prevailed in Somalia in the early 1990s, the Security Council invoked Chapter VII to authorize the Secretary-General and cooperating member states to "use all necessary means" to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations (Resolution 794 (1992)).

bestbefore: As some of you may be aware the ex Prime Minister of the U.K. is donating the royalties of his book to help the war wounded via the British Legion.Doesn't it mean that we now have to go out and buy the said book to boost the cophers.

What is your take on this "grand " gesture.

potter1: It is not a grand gesture, it is a publicity stunt to gain support in the right quarters if its a charity donation why go public, and yes he could of kept it quite if he wanted to. He is worth millions on the back of being prime minister of england and getting out before the hammer fell on gordon brown, who is now about to do the same as blair and make millions of the back of being prime minister. peace lovely lady only my opinion

Albertaghost: You know, other than what a few posters have said about 'who cares, at least the money's going to a good place' I agree with you. Like charity is charity however, I do have a question for you;

When asked or accused of making money off this book and being selfish and keeping it, what is he supposed to say?