|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 5, 2013 20:31:18 GMT
What I find hard to understand is why Bush, Blair and the rest of them have not been arrested and brought before a court to explain their illegal war.
The actual invasion was a violation of the UN Charter as the Security Council had never authorized the use of force against Iraq and Iraq was complying with UN Resolutions related to the Weapons Inspectors verification of the claim by Iraq that it had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and no programs to produce them.
The only "International Authority" that can actually deal with violations of the UN Charter is the UN Security Council and the US and UK both have veto authority as permanent members. No indictment was going to come from the UN.
Both the legislatures in the UK and US authorized the Use of Force (military action) so the members of the legislature would oppose indictments of either Bush or Blair respectively because they would also be subject to the indictment based upon complicity in the authorization.
Now individual war crimes and crimes against humanity are a different matter but neither the British government or the US government would prosecute their own leader for war crimes and crimes against humanity (and that is of course wrong) and once again as permanent members of the US Security Council they can technically block any prosecution by the International Court of Criminal Justice that the Security Council ultimately controls.
Personally I've always opposed the veto power of the UNSC permanent members that are exclusively used for political purposes that result in hypocrisy in UNSC actions.
Then perhaps the USA & UK should have been suspended from the UN until such time they explained their actions and the reasoning behind them, and I am saying that as a UK citizen. If individual governments can basically ignore the UN what is the point in having it? |
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 5, 2013 20:34:33 GMT
One has to look behind all the lies and see what the lies were for. In this case, as with most American started wars since WWII, it was the American arms industry. You have to see who makes money from these things and other issues such as American policy in the middle east. Oil is a blind; the US arms industry is the real winner and driving force behind everything. I have been looking for an article that showed that the US defense budget was due to be cut just before Iraq part 2, after it increased, the same article looked at the proposed defense budget cut just prior to 9/11 as well .. but for some reason it has disappeared .. I know conspiracy theory!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2013 22:08:46 GMT
What I find hard to understand is why Bush, Blair and the rest of them have not been arrested and brought before a court to explain their illegal war.
The actual invasion was a violation of the UN Charter as the Security Council had never authorized the use of force against Iraq and Iraq was complying with UN Resolutions related to the Weapons Inspectors verification of the claim by Iraq that it had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and no programs to produce them.
The only "International Authority" that can actually deal with violations of the UN Charter is the UN Security Council and the US and UK both have veto authority as permanent members. No indictment was going to come from the UN.
Both the legislatures in the UK and US authorized the Use of Force (military action) so the members of the legislature would oppose indictments of either Bush or Blair respectively because they would also be subject to the indictment based upon complicity in the authorization.
Now individual war crimes and crimes against humanity are a different matter but neither the British government or the US government would prosecute their own leader for war crimes and crimes against humanity (and that is of course wrong) and once again as permanent members of the US Security Council they can technically block any prosecution by the International Court of Criminal Justice that the Security Council ultimately controls.
Personally I've always opposed the veto power of the UNSC permanent members that are exclusively used for political purposes that result in hypocrisy in UNSC actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 6, 2013 1:06:50 GMT
Then perhaps the USA & UK should have been suspended from the UN until such time they explained their actions and the reasoning behind them, and I am saying that as a UK citizen. If individual governments can basically ignore the UN what is the point in having it?
As has been noted the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that are only used for political reasons corrupt the entire process and purpose of the United Nations. |
|
