Kofi is trying to smokescreen the fact that his thievin' butt will be sent off to jail for robbing the Oil for Food Program....
roger wrote
Quote:Saddam has won? In the same terms, then, Bush has lost. I've lost my certainty of the need for the invasion, but I'm still sure one of the above leaders sleeps in prison, and the other, in The White House.
That is unfortunate. If there were any justice they would be occupying adjoining cells.
Well at least you read my post McG
If I've made factual error feel free to correct it .
Believe me I don't wish to come across with so bleak assessment, I wish things were better in Iraq (I supported the war initially). But that's the way I see it right now.
Convince me I'm wrong...it'll make me feel better, I get depressed reading my own posts!
Thanks for the links NeoGuin.
Regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, Henry Kissinger was another receipient, inspiring Tom Lehrer to comment that "satire was dead".
au1929 wrote:kitchenpete wrote
Quote:I'll just concentrate on the fact that Kofi Annan has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
So has Arafat!
At least Arafat tried to negotiate. He couldn't stop the terrorists and suicide bombers but he didn't send in the tanks.
I don't have a problem with Arafat's prize, any more than Mandela's or Gorbachev's.
KP
Wasn't George Bush nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
kitchenpete wrote
Quote:At least Arafat tried to negotiate. He couldn't stop the terrorists and suicide bombers but he didn't send in the tanks
.
Arafat has never negotiated in good faith. As for stopping terrorists and suicide bombers. There is no doubt that he could have stopped it if he wanted to. He and his terrorist organization are part and parcel of it.
This topic highlights the idiocy that is U.S. foreign policy.
Why did we invade Iraq? Because of WMD, right? Actually it's non-compliance with UN resolutions that the neocons are throwing around these days.
But... we (America) fail to comply with UN resolutions all the time. In this case, we predicated war upon a soveigrn country with no provocation. It IS illegal according to the standards of accountability that we hold others to.
Why do we hold ourselves above the UN and expect other countries to follow it? It's the height of hypocracy.
Cycloptichorn
Terrific posts.
I wanna know . . .
"Where's the money?!"
The war cost 200--is it billion?--dollars.
When trying to unravel any good scheme, it's important to follow the money trail.
So ... who got it?
I got it. And I dug a big hole in my back yard and buried it. But if y'all are nice, I may share some of it with you. But let's just keep this our little secret, ok?
You may be right about the adjoining cells, Au, but that ain't the way it ended.
So far as stopping terrorists, I'm sure he (Arafat) could have. I know of no reason to think he hasn't been responsible for a large part of it.
U.S. Allies Reject Annan's Iraq Claim
Quote:1 hour, 49 minutes ago
By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer
LONDON - Major U.S. allies on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) that the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was "illegal" because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.
Annan's comments undercut governments from Australia to Italy that supported the United States on Iraq, often in the face of widespread domestic opposition.
The U.N. chief told British Broadcasting Corp. radio on Wednesday that the U.S.-led invasion did not conform to the United Nations (news - web sites) Charter, which lets nations take military action with explicit Security Council approval.
"From our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal," Annan said. He also raised concerns that persistent violence in Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.
Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s office disputed Annan's comments about the legitimacy of the war. It reiterated that the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, had found Britain was acting legally in supporting the military action, citing three U.N. resolutions that justified the use of force against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime.
Britain was a leading supporter of the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam, a war that followed months of bitter debate in the 15-nation Security Council.
Bush didn't comment directly on Annan's remarks but said he had no regrets.
"I was hoping diplomacy would work, " Bush said Thursday while campaigning in Minnesota. "Knowing what I know today even though we haven't found the stockpiles of weapons we thought were there, I'd still make the same decision. America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell."
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, which also supported the invasion, made no comment.
But Giuseppe Fioroni, a member of Italy's center-left opposition, urged the government to take a position.
"Other governments felt a duty to express themselves with clear words. As usual, Italy is an exception from which we would like to hear a position clearly and urgently," Fioroni told the country's ANSA news agency.
Analyst Germano Dottori of the Center for Strategic Studies in Rome said he suspected Annan was trying to undermine President Bush (news - web sites) before the U.S. elections.
"The timing cannot be explained otherwise. Why would you make a statement like this now, when it is in everybody's interest to stabilize the situation?" Dottori said.
France and Germany, which led the opposition to the war, declined to reopen the debate that split the Atlantic alliance.
"You know our position," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said when asked to comment on Annan's comments. "We had the opportunity at the time to express ourselves very clearly."
French lawmaker Axel Poniatowski, a member of President Jacques Chirac's party, said France's reluctance to publicly react to Annan's position showed that the debate on the legality of the war is over.
"This problem has passed into history," Poniatowski told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "The issue today is how do we get out of the Iraqi situation and what do we do against terrorism."
But Spain ?- whose current government opposed the war and withdrew its troops from Iraq after being elected in March ?- said Annan's comments came as no surprise.
"We're not surprised by Annan's comments. That's what Spain said and that's why we pulled out the troops," government spokesman Javier Valenzuela said.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard ?- a staunch U.S. supporter who defied widespread public anger to participate in the invasion ?- said the military action was "entirely legal."
A previous Security Council resolution had warned Iraq to be prepared for "serious consequences" if it didn't meet U.N. obligations, but the United States dropped an attempt to get a new resolution explicitly approving the March 2003 invasion when it became clear the measure would not pass.
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time ?- without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," Annan told the BBC.
British Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said she also disagreed with Annan.
"There have always been different views on that matter and ... of course I respect his views on this matter and I regret that we disagree with them," Hewitt told BBC radio, adding the important thing now was to help Iraqis achieve "a safe, secure, democratic Iraq."
Japan's top government spokesman, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda, said his country, also a U.S. supporter in Iraq, would seek clarification about Annan's remarks.
Annan said the wave of violence engulfing Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.
There could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he told the BBC.
Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer said elections will not be held just "for the sake of elections" and emphasized that returning peace to his country is his government's priority.
"We want to hold the elections in a safe and secure environment. We will keep working around the clock to meet this commitment," he said during a visit to the Netherlands. "The U.N. is supervising and monitoring and helping us a lot in Iraq preparing for elections next year. I think it is a little bit too premature to decide on this issue."
Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said he is determined to hold the election by Jan. 31, and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth has all but ruled out any delay beyond the Jan. 31 deadline.
Source
Brand X wrote:U.S. Allies Reject Annan's Iraq Claim
Do you think that anyone should be surprised by that?
Setanta wrote:Brand X wrote:U.S. Allies Reject Annan's Iraq Claim
Do you think that anyone should be surprised by that?
As much as they are surprised about Kofi's comment, nothing more nothing less.
Therefore, i declare a draw . . . please withdraw to a neutral corner . . .
I think it's time for a vote of no confidance and replace Annan with the emper... er I mean a new leader.
And here i alus thought the Shrub wanted to be King . . . so he's got his eye on the Imperial Purple, huh?