[/quote]What Britain and America carried out was illegal.[quote]
What utter crap, go and read resolution 1441.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
Why should the US allow us to have all these sodding report's for the CORONER'S they got killed in Action. My son has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan(and lost some good mates, my old Driver from my day in the Forces died 3 months ago in Iraq) he does not have a problem with it.
Yes we did sell weapons to the Argies but not during the bloody conflict.
As for Cyprus. Cyprus needs the EU, the EU does not need Cyprus, GB can live without the EU no problem.
USA did not enetr the WW11 straight away you are correct , but we did get weapons and material from them before they joined.
Nobody wants to abolish the EU , we want TRADE and TRADE only, not the Corrupt and undemocratic lying cheating politicians from France and Germany who run the show.
Bear
Should the EU become a superstate?
32 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by dancingbear » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:48 pm
- dancingbear
- Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:51 am
by Simon » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:33 pm
You are talking out of your arse mate. Let us consider what Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN stated shall we?
[quote]The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. [/quote]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 661134.stm
Or how about:
[quote]The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.
They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".
Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.
However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.[/quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 09,00.html
OR:
[quote]The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.
Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. (AFP/File/Sven Nackstrand)
His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.
An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologize for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.
But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.
Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.
Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.
Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.
The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.
Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.
It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.
Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."
In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologize over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.
But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."
He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."
"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further."
"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith."
The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities.
Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD. [/quote]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
EVEN THE BRITISH ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDED ORIGINALLY THAT THE UK WAS NOT ON SAFE LEGAL GROUNDS WHEN CONSIDERING INVADING IRAQ. He changed his mind once Britain was pressurised by the US.
So do Kofi Annan; Hans Blix etc all talk crap? Not to mention that THERE WERE NO DAMN WEAPONS ANYWAY! Heard of Dr Kelly and a sexed up document? It was all illegal! Stop being so naive!
With regards to the Coroner's report; I am very surprised at your attitude considering you have a son serving in the Armed Forces. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: If your son had died through a friendly-fire incident; wouldn't you want to know the exact circumstances of how it happened? Wouldn't you want the Coroner to be given all relevant details to conclude his findings? Do you have no thought for the bereaved families? Surely this is the least our 'closest allies' the US owe us, considering we backed their war for OIL.
Cyprus can live without the EU. Indeed, it has been until very recently. As I have said before, Britain is becoming insignificant and irrelevant in world affairs; if you are happy for Britain to continue to be America's bitch, then fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. Don't expect me to agree with you.
[quote]The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. [/quote]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 661134.stm
Or how about:
[quote]The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.
They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".
Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.
However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.[/quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 09,00.html
OR:
[quote]The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.
Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. (AFP/File/Sven Nackstrand)
His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.
An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologize for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.
But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.
Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.
Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.
Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.
The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.
Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.
It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.
Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."
In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologize over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.
But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."
He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."
"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further."
"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith."
The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities.
Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD. [/quote]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
EVEN THE BRITISH ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDED ORIGINALLY THAT THE UK WAS NOT ON SAFE LEGAL GROUNDS WHEN CONSIDERING INVADING IRAQ. He changed his mind once Britain was pressurised by the US.
So do Kofi Annan; Hans Blix etc all talk crap? Not to mention that THERE WERE NO DAMN WEAPONS ANYWAY! Heard of Dr Kelly and a sexed up document? It was all illegal! Stop being so naive!
With regards to the Coroner's report; I am very surprised at your attitude considering you have a son serving in the Armed Forces. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: If your son had died through a friendly-fire incident; wouldn't you want to know the exact circumstances of how it happened? Wouldn't you want the Coroner to be given all relevant details to conclude his findings? Do you have no thought for the bereaved families? Surely this is the least our 'closest allies' the US owe us, considering we backed their war for OIL.
Cyprus can live without the EU. Indeed, it has been until very recently. As I have said before, Britain is becoming insignificant and irrelevant in world affairs; if you are happy for Britain to continue to be America's bitch, then fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. Don't expect me to agree with you.
-
Simon - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm
by dancingbear » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:43 pm
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence
Well mate that says it all, usless UN non leader. The whole of the UN is absurd and needs rebuilding to enforce the rules that they pass.
Bear
- dancingbear
- Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:51 am
by dancingbear » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:48 pm
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: If your son had died through a friendly-fire incident; wouldn't you want to know the exact circumstances of how it happened? Wouldn't you want the Coroner to be given all relevant details to conclude his findings? Do you have no thought for the bereaved families?
Yes i would have grieved as a Father, then my friend we move on. having all these talk shows would do nothing but give the likes of you more ammunition to lambast the Goverments . Dont get me wrong here I would and never will vote Labour but this I was 100% with them.
Anyway back to the EU never in my life time I hope I will see a Untied states of Europe, I am British wanting to live in Cyprus, so what the Cypriot people vote is up to them.
Bear
- dancingbear
- Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:51 am
by Simon » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:58 pm
Who is saying that we cannot move on? It is the VERY FACT that these people want to move on; but it is very difficult to achieve closure when the US witholds information as to how your son/daughter etc died. The Coroner himself criticised the US over this. I do not blame the Labour government for this; they have requested the information and were lied to in one instance regarding a particular tape's existence! For this I blame the US! I see a one-sided servile relationship when I consider anglo-American relations; and I would much rather we formed a Union with the EU any day than continue with this interventionist foreign policy of the US. By the way, I notice that you didn't actually answer the question?
-
Simon - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm
by dancingbear » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:15 pm
Simon,
We will have to agrre to disagree on Iraq , otherwise we will end up quoting everybody and everything. What is done is done.
Your first question I would have thought should have got a bigger and better response, perhaps the EU is not such a big debating Question.
Bear
We will have to agrre to disagree on Iraq , otherwise we will end up quoting everybody and everything. What is done is done.
Your first question I would have thought should have got a bigger and better response, perhaps the EU is not such a big debating Question.
Bear
- dancingbear
- Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:51 am
by ge0rg10 » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:17 pm
Simon wrote:geOrg, if you have been reading Free_Cyprus posts, repeating the same thing over and over again; that we are slaves and how our current leaders are traitors, then you would not believe RoC is a sovereign state. Hence this is why I stated it was. British bases are here in Cyprus due to a legal agreement. Turkey is not here legally. Greece does not occupy Cyprus. Every Greek person of importance (i.e. officials, military personnel etc) is here due to the permission of the RoC government. This is likely to continue while the island is under ILLEGAL occupation. Seventy-seven percent of the Cypriot people consider themselves ethnically Greek; and therefore, some display Greek flags. The north calls itself Turkish! Until a solution is achieved which breaks down these barriers, this is how it will remain. If the solution is akin to the Annan Plan, it will remain for good. Are you Greek Cypriot geOrg? I couldn't help but notice in a different thread you stated you supported Portugal at Euro 2004 in the final against Greece?
Dear Simon, your a joke! i said that turkey was occupying illegally and that the brits and greeks are there legally. I was just trying to help you understand a different opinion but you obviously didnt read it properly as you just repeated what i said. I am just pointing out that all three have their hands in the cookie jar sort of speak. I dont disagree with you about anything and your tone is disgusting, don’t look down at others with a difference of opinion. "are you greek cypriot geOrg" if you were not trying to win other readers over to "your side" as you would see it, you wouldnt be asking that question as you have read the thread where i was shouting about the cultural similarity between GC and Greece, yes you did read this as this is where I stated I supported Portugal, they deserved it and Greece were lucky. SO you repeated what i said, then insulted me by asking whether i was a GC and then you ask me questions you know the answer too!!! This obviously wasnt meant for me to read, it was meant so others can be brainwashed by it!!!!!!!
PS annan plan = not the best we could come up with!
- ge0rg10
- Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:34 am
by Simon » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:25 pm
Georg my tone is disgusting, in what way? You have offended me; so now I shall call you A FUCKING TWAT. YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ YOU PRICK! Did I say anywhere that you did not say Turkey was there illegally etc etc. NO I DIDN'T, LEARN TO READ PRAT!! I was making a general statement as to my beliefs and reinforcing what I said to Free_Cyprus as you seemed to be questioning it. That may be too difficult for a retarded prick like you to understand. What different opinion was you helping me to understand? There have been more than 3 hands in the cookie jar as you refer to it, trust me. However, I am not here to educate you, so I shall not go into that. Greece were lucky? Explain to me how? You are a complete moron pure and simple. Greece beat France, PORTUGAL TWICE, Czech Rep etc etc on their way to winning that Cup. Not once did they even need penalties! That does not sound like an easy or lucky route to me. They won it on merit and being fantastic defensively, however, I do not expect ignorant pricks like you to understand that. You probably only stated this to show your 'neutrality'. IDIOT!! Probably trying to suck up to Free_Cyprus who you so vehemently defend.
I insulted you when asking you a simple question. You are nothing but a twat and I am insulting you to the highest degree now!
[size=24][/size]YOU ARE A PRICK
I insulted you when asking you a simple question. You are nothing but a twat and I am insulting you to the highest degree now!
[size=24][/size]YOU ARE A PRICK
Last edited by Simon on Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Simon - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm
32 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Cyprus and the European Union
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
