Why Not fully back Kofi Annan and give peace a chance in Syria ( Archived) (411)

My answer is above.

Let me TRY TO SIMPLIFY it FOR THE LAST time:

US want Death penalty for Bradley and at the same time wants the Pakistani Doc released... Outside US viewed as double standard.

The West wants regime change in Syria despite the fact that it contradicts the very constitution of the UN, which was set up by the US and others after the War. Outside West viewed as double standard.

The US and the West claim to be worried about civilian safety.
Outside the west/US viewed as double standard... Because of recent wars and even more recent Libya... viewed as double standard.

US slags off Russia for contractual agreements with Syria, whilst at the same time The West resumes arm supplies to Bahrain... viewed as double standard.

West complains that Russia /China ability to use VETO, whilst at the same time using veto countless times to benefit Israel... Double standards

Add to the above the fact that people like you avoid at all costs the real issues, whilst at the same time spreading propaganda to suit each debate, where propaganda don't fit then you do your very best to circumvent the subject at hand, should that fail you then pretend not to understand the other point of view...

And you wonder why the US / West is very quickly losing the PR battle..


War is not always the answer!

Of course not but you could narrow it down to exactly what logic and where gives you that idea though.



Speaking of tripe none of your above examples contain a circumstance where the UN is protecting a civilian population from their own military.



So there really is no club then. Just something you made up and it has no legal basis for affecting decisions in the UNSC.



People like me who seem to clearly see that the action in Iraq was indeed legal contrary to people such as yourself who believe it was illegal because they make up some group known as 'the club' in order to attempt to counter that reality.


True.



From the guy who believes the UN has a formal group known as 'the club'



From the guy who believes that the UNSC approved action in Iraq was illegal because of some imaginary group known as 'the club'.



You don't seem to be offended that I also didn't include Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Wiccan and tree worshiping nations either so if you will note, it was a racial labeling rather than a religious one as Max was speaking of the same.





So there is no higher body than the UNSC and their resolutions 660 - 1441 were legal and your reference to an imaginary entity was a Hail Mary ploy.



By fabricating entities to win an argument and conducting personal attacks it would seem you need the help.

YOUR rather foolish statement that INNOCENTS could not be hurt UNLESS in the loving, Army attire of the military... Point Exhausted..


You ARE absolutely CORRECT, however they DO go to prove beyond doubt that INNOCENT CIVILIANS get killed, Cancer and deformities as a result.........


NO my boy, AGAIN, JUST FOR YOU no club.... PLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEE read my posts before making more statements.


Again see above.. the SG of UN said that action was Illegal AS PER the constitution of the UN..... AS did INTERNATIONAL LAW...............



Exhausted **** AS ABOVE ****** EXHAUSTED


The term antisemitic or indeed Semitic does not include any of the above mentioned AT ALL. It identifies the Semitic peoples, not Religious nor racial Per Se.. God help us all!



The higher body is INTERNATIONAL LAW ! What Ever!

Strange I neve said that I asked why innocent women and children would be hanging out with the military who were attacking civilians.

Oh well, wouldn't be the first time you have things mixed up I suppose so am getting quite used to it.



You didn't know that civilians often get hurt in war prior to this? Amazing.



So then why did you offer it up as proof that the Iraq actions as approved by the UNSC was illegal?



The administrative officer who is not part of the UNSC can say what he wishes but it does not affect their rulings. As for international law. UN Charter covers that quite nicely as per Article 39 with ""The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.""

And they did with resolutions 660 - 1441. Nice and legal.



Indeed. You have exausted all avenues with this last ditch effort to label it as illegal.



And Asian, European, American as well?



And I quoted it in article 39 of the UN Charter where it provides the Security Council those powers to deal with ""THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION""

A good read, you might try it sometime.

Your implication was that only the military of Syria would die, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!


yes, AND DESPITE you denying the fact, I then proved it!!!!


At the very start of this most tiresome so called debate...


The SG is the protector of the constitution, what don't you understand that???? NO IT DOES NOT under the UN constitution......


READ THE CONSTITUTION.... ENOUGH SAID!!



I did, time and again whilst writing a paper titled: Iraq, a just war?, a legal war? or the destruction of UN laws under false pretenses. It also fell under others such as The psychology of man and his desire for conquest.....

Now it ends here, If you can not debate the question put without redirecting or circumventing the subject to fit your warped point of view... Then simply put, WHAT IS THE POINT.

BTW, I have noticed the amount of questions your chose to avoid......

And your implication that any attack on the military would occur despite there being civilians present is also not true.



I never denied it. This is what I mean by you making up arguments.



Where on earth do you pull your information from? He is the administrative officer. I quote article 97 of the UN Charter;

""The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.""



I quoted that as well last post. Here again is Article 39 with

""The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.""



I have and quote from it. You on the other hand seem to prefer to make things up rather than go to their site.



Seems you might want to read the UN Charter in detail prior to writing something like that again. Hell, you don't even know what the duties of the Secretary General are so make your own up and figure the hell with reality, your fantasy is far more accurate.



You were the one who decided to take this off track with your silly contention that the Iraq invasion was illegal.



And I you. Seems it's tit for tat save for the major point which was that the Iraq invasion was legal and you offer nothing to counter the quotes from the charter and UNSC Resolution I provided preferring to make your own stuff up.

I'd hate to read the fact laden prose you wrote.

Curious, I took a look and could only come up with these;



And, I believe I answered them all. Even the ones written in caps. If there are any I missed then I apologize and will be happy to answer them for you once yo point out where they are.

Thanks.

OK this ends here, and is the last time: I refuse to allow you to hijack this subject/Thread at the expense of others out there who might otherwise have something to say on the original subject...

I propose the following example: Either Agree or disagree, I DON'T CARE anymore! But let that be the end of it... PLEASE...

Alberta,
If the BRICSC decided to take action against the US. Financial or leadership change or whatever, EVEN if it were written within their constitution that to do so was legal… It would not be Legal under International law! Do you understand the concept so far??

Now IF the leader or leaders of said group took action anyway, IT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW (without legal and just cause), Regardless whether the rest of said group agreed or not to take actions against their Leader/Leaders….

Thus, even if the constitution of the UN allowed for such actions (as against Iraq) which it absolutely and clearly DOES NOT!, It would still be an ILLEGAL action under International Law…..

However, to take legal action against such infringement would lead to a vote of the UN members and quite simply that would never happen.. However this does NOT change the FACT that said actions are still ILLEGAL under International Law…

There is no body or Country or Super Power or Minor Power above International Law. However one simply needs money, power and the backing of the powerful to challenge the wrong and bring the challenge to the International Courts. To this very point in time No body or group or power has been able to do so..

Remember the attempts to Get Blair charged or the attempts to get Israeli leaders into the international Courts? For example… The fact that nobody has at this time got the power or finances to do so, DOES not mean that International law was not broken…

As I said above agree or disagree or agree to disagree, I don’t care! But it stops now, then back to subject…

Then don't start something you can't finish as you did in post #43 with your contention the Iraq action was illegal. I've cited the applicable resolutions as well as quoted UN Charter winch allows for the Security Council to make these determinations and, also quoted UN Charter which explains that the Secretary Generals position is administrative rather than executive and certainly he is not able to supersede the charter itself and nullify the determinations of the Security Council.



With you back against the wall and no quotes of any charter to refute the reality of the fact that the UNSC was designed and authorized to implement policies and actions that are detrimental ""WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION"" you now wish to close this down.

Try not starting stuff like this with errant make believe statements like you did then please.



WTF? I thought you wanted to close this down and here you keep right on spewing out garbage without any shred of evidence that it supersedes UN Charter where the Security Council has been authorized to take action ""WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION""

Close it or keep it going, your choice.

So you lying about the invasion of Iraq being illegal is fine but straightening out that fantasy with factual proof is wrong. Once again, you took your own thread off track not me and now, are out of your own depth when I quote from the UN Charter.



Now, if you wish to return to the thread as it was prior to your fallacies about the legality of the Iraq invasion, I'm all for it!