bradco

Here's only a few questions about the legitimacy of the coalitions's actions in Iraq: 1. Do a few words in a ten year old resolution serve as a proper authorisation of such a drastic measure as full scale military invasion of a sovereign state? -the US/UK argument: yes, by violating the ceasefire the initial resolution that authourized such drastic measures as full scale military invasion was still in effect 2. I recall that there was a big discussion as to whether the original resolution was in fact intended to be the mandate for a direct action, as opposed to a warning that such may follow in case of incompliance. Hand twisting of minor security council members by US / UK in order to obtain the second resolution only confirms these doubts. -The UK (not the US) attempted to get a second resolution in addition to 1441. This was because the UK administration looked at the opinion polls and realized that people in Britain didnt believe 1441 authorized force (domestic support is always a governments main concern). I totally agree that it weakens the legal argument they used since it showed that they themselves did not think it a strong arguement. In the build up to the war Tony Blair was on a news show taking questions from the audience. A woman got up and quite passionately argued with him over going to war. Good ol' Tony asked her whether she would feel comfortable with going to war if the SC explicitly authorized force. She said "yes". He said would you feel more comfortable then if I went back to the SC for a second resolution. She said "yes".... Was this the moment that made him go back? Maybe, maybe not. Either way it was a poor decision on his part because it weakened his legal arguement. 3. Even more importantly, did the original resolution give the "states" in question the quasi-judicial power to decide what exactly constitutes incompliance and what not? -any failure to meet the requirements of 1441 was considered to be incompliance. My reading of 1441 is that the SC would then decide further action. The US/UK reading is that any violation only had to be reported to the SC (which it was) and that authorization was already given for the use of force in 1441. 4. Finally, if the composition of the group "assisting the government of Kuwait" changed significantly over the time, that may have necessitated the renewal of the mandate. -more important than the change in composition of the group is that they are no longer "assisting the government of Kuwait". Although this may not need another resolution it does bring in legal questions as to which states are actually authorized to use force in the "second" Iraq War. It may be that only the original states that assisted the government of Kuwait have the right to uphold the ceasefire agreement. "However what I feel to be of critical importance, is that there were an international venue where the instigators and perpetrators of this kind of action were routinely brought to to prove, with their laywers, the legality of their actions" -this is the SC. Lawyers, politicians etc do an immense amount of arguing, justifying and negoiating (mostly behind closed doors) to write out these resolutions....it takes them weeks and weeks to get these things done and if you read the resolutions they are usually only a page or two. The truth is that every single little word in each resolution is argued over and put in there for very specific reasons. Look at the original resolutions from the first war....they authorize the use of force to restore peace and security "in the area" not "in Kuwait" (the difference is huge and produces a legal argument for the second war) "and suffer punishment if it were to be proven, in the court of law that they were, in fact, illegal" -that is what is missing. However, I would argue that they still face punishment. Its a safe bet that many world leaders and diplomats resent very much that they were lied to by the Bush Administration who greatly exagerated the threat Iraq posed. How many of these world leaders and diplomats are now rushing to help out in Iraq? None. I think it would be foolish to think that certain people in diplomatic circles being upset with the US/UK isnt a reason why there is no support now for reconstructing Iraq. The view in a lot of places is probably "you created the mess, you are going to clean it up". Unfortunatly it is the Iraqi people who are the ones that are being penalized the most not the US/UK administrations. If the US had found WMD I bet there would have been quite a few countries helping clean the mess now, including Canada. "Otherwise, it would be seen (and already is) worldwide as yet another manifistation of West's desire to establish its rule and order and will breed scores and generations of revenge seekers. With some innocent people sometime someplace in the feature taking the punishment instead." -yup My views on 1441: It is intentionally ambiguous. While not explicitly authorizing force it at least gives the US/UK a legal argument (even if it is a weak one). The French/Russians wanted weapons inspections and diplomacy and they got that in 1441. The US/UK got what they wanted: a legal argument they could use at home to justify the war, not necessarily an explicit authorization. The French/Russians had to surrender at least some sort of legal argument in 1441 to the US/UK. The US was going no matter what and the only reason Powel was at the SC was because there was a bit of time before they were fully mobilized and they thought they might as well give it a go. The worst thing that could of happened, especially for the French, is the US went without any sort of legal argument because it would spell the end for the SC. And lets face it, the SC and the veto gives France some sort of power which they wouldnt have otherwise.

I dont see an election in the spring... First of all I dont think the polls are going to change enough to convince any party into an election. If there isn't anything to gain theres no point going for it.. I am tempted to think that after two quick elections the finances of all parties must be running low. In that kind of situation forcing an election is only good policy if gains can clearly be made. I truly believe the Bloc will wait for the provincial election....their main goal is separation and that can only be achieved by winning the provincial election so all the resources will be focused on that. If Afghanistan continues to be an issue I dont think the Conservatives will want to go because itll be tough to make gains in Quebec. Does anyone think forcing an election, or being the party responsible for it is a bad idea? Especially when the polls are relatively similar to the last election. I for one would be willing to penalize any party that forces an election on us (and all the costs involved with one) when there is nothing to be gained from it. However, I am openly non-partisan and that effects my views towards playing politics instead of governing.

good point Im not sure it ever was.....but how many members of the coalition of the willing had men on the ground in Iraq? Giving support to and directly participating in our slightly different but ya their are some interesting legal questions there

A face saving gester by definition would allow Saddam to deviate from what is written on the document. We also do not know what Saddam was told off the record. It is possible that France and Russia gave him assurances that they would accept the face saving gester. This meant he knew that there would be no invasion authorized by the SC because of his non-compliance on this point. He may have assumed that if the US/UK were willing to attack without SC authorization then they would likely attack no matter what he did. It is also possible that France and Russia believed that the US/UK would not attack without SC authorization and told Saddam as much. In this case it would the egos of the French and the Russians that are too blame. Of course by definition such a gesture would allow deviation from the written words of 1441 but we must understand the context that these words were written in. Bush had stated that the UN/SC would not prevent the United States from protecting itself. This can only be interpreted as him confirming to Saddam, The French and the Russians that he was coming, authorization or not. The only way to avoid an intervention would be to satisy the Bush administration that he did not pose a threat (by compyling 100%). 100% compliance would also have effected public opinion in the United States about the war and could have prevented intervention this way by convincing the American public he did not pose a threat (remember the justification for the war was he had WMD and was going to use them on the US). Pre-war polls showed around 70 percent of Americans wanted Bush to go to the SC and try to get authorization. Now if the poll had asked: Should America not invade Iraq if authorization is not given I think most people would have said screw the SC. But these polls show why Bush decided to go to the SC during the time it took to mobilize the troops. He was following public opinion which is a smart move for the leader of a democratic government. Changing public opinion about the threat of Iraq may have been the only way to stop an invasion. Why not comply then? This leads me back to the security issues. Stopping the Americans from attacking does no good to Saddam if he believes he is then vulnerable to attack from somewhere else.

"Off topic - Canada does not teach it's own people about Candian history. The average Canadian student cannot tell you where the St Lawrence Seaway is. Poll on CFRA Ottawa. Amazing but true." This is simply because the vast majority of people are dumb. Sad, amazing, but very true. You can't teach people who don't want to learn anything. Their willingness to be stupid and ignorant is astonishing. And I can say this as someone who has been out of highschool for only a little over 2 years and still encounters such individuals at university. Canadian history, geography and politics are all part of the highschool curriculum. We don't forbid people to turn off the tv and open a book or newspaper. Their lack of knowledge is their own fault and nobody elses.

rubbish... should I say all conservatives are bigots. That they believe that if you're not a straight White male Christian you're sort of like sub-human and dont deserve equal rights. tolerating the intolerant actions of others has absolutly nothing to do with multiculturalism. If we were a completely White society we would still turn a blind eye to the intolerance of our fellow citizens. A "civilized white society" would still be intolerant of each others languages, religions, cultures, sexual orientation etc. There is something else that makes people turn a blind eye to intolerance. What it is I dont know. Maybe people just dont have the balls to stand up and say that what someone is saying is wrong. This lack of courage to stand up for something existed before the rise of multicultural societies. Blaming multiculturalism to justify racism and other intolerant beliefs is wrong.

Actually, the Gov't of the day told the truth, but Canadians prefered to believe what they believed, like Peacekeeping is what our soldiers do....... Now I was only in the milita for little over a year back in the early 80s... and while we trained against bio-chemical and nuclear attacks, trained as mechanized infantry, trained to clear minefields.....lobbed grenades...fired LAWS....and such....we never trained to be UN observers. The highly marketable image of Canada's armed forces as peace keepers is a myth. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home and this is why Layton should not even bother trying to formulate a foreign policy....because he is stuck believing in some myth. A myth that if it were true would produce ineffective military policy. on a side note Mr. Layton will be at UBC this Friday and I for one am looking forward to questioning him on his ridiculous foreign policy.

I think ego has to be it but not for the reasons you stated. Saddam complied with the resolutions because he had to but he wanted to salvage a small vestige of pride. As a result, he held out on what he hoped was something that the SC would let go as a face saving gester (I am not sure what difference it would make to question the scientists outside the country if their extended families or friends were still in Iraq). valid argument... But was his ego sufficiently big enough to risk so much? 1441 clearly states that any failure to comply will result in "serious consequences". 1441 although offering him one last chance is in my opinion an attempt to set him up for failure. The US/UK negotiated 1441 very well and although the French secured the weapons inspections they were looking for the resolution clearly is meant to lead to an authorization for force (since Saddam would not meet the requirements). Did he not read it in such a way? Because if one reads it in this way it is clear there will not be any face safing gestures coming for the SC (and definetly not the US/UK who were itching to go and would go regardless of a clear authorization anyways). Or was his ego large enough to ignore this?

"I believe we should be part of a UN force of anti-terrorist commando strike forces hunting and killing terrorists world-wide." haha I like this, totally agree.....I would add that this force should also not just fight terrorists but fight regimes that harbour terrorists and fight groups that threaten the peace on behalf of democratically elected governments which represent the will of the people We are in Afghanistan at the request of the recognized government which is allowed for under the UN Charter. If we leave, this government will be overrun by the Taliban, a group that harboured the terrorists that attacked our ally and largest trading partner. We have a duty to our ally to ensure they do not get back into power where they can repeat their actions. We also have a duty to Afghanistan to ensure these people are not in power. And yes I truly believe the vast majority of people in Afghanistan would rather have their current government than the Taliban. "I believe if the US and other countries were genuinely interested in fighting terrorism instead of using such a notion as a pretense to secure oil pipelines and strategic positoning they wouldn't be invading countries and using coventional armies as proxy governments and political police but would be sticking to using small, elite, lightening attack, commando units that would be going in and out, killing terrorists and then disappearing." If only getting rid of these groups was that easy. You cant go in kill a few of them with quick strikes and leave. They will come back. Invading Afghanistan may of had something to do with oil pipelines. However, the Bush Adminstration would have been there even if there was no need for a pipeline. To do otherwise would have been political suicide. They had to respond to the 9/11 attacks. I do believe that they have lost their way since then though. Iraq had nothing to do with national security and stole all the resources that should have been going to addressing real threats.

Had an interesting discussion in a class on War Law today and thought I'd continue it here.. question: What was Saddam thinking with his response to SC resolution 1441? (SC resolutions are available on the UN website for those who are interested) a little background: resolution 1441 is a mix of both US/UK and French positions on the Iraq War. It is the resolution that is used as the legal justification for the Iraq invasion (even though it doesn't explicitly authorize force). 1441 recalls the relevant resolutions from the first Gulf War: the 687 ceasefire and 678 authorization to use "all necesasary means" to uphold 660 (ordering Saddam out of Kuwait). Important to this discussion is that 1441 sets out certain requirements to be met by Saddam as a final chance to avoid invasion (including weapons inspections). These requirements were intentionally harsh to set him up for further "material breach" of 687. According to my professor when he questioned Hans Blix about the weapons inspections he had expressed shock at how much cooperation Saddam had actually given. He had almost completely complied with the extensive requirements put on him by 1441 including allowing searches of pretty much anything (including palaces). There had been instances where missiles that were slightly over the allowed range were found and the Iraqi military would quickly say o go ahead and destroy them like it wasn't a big deal. One area he failed to comply was allowing for nuclear scientists to be taken out of the country for questioning. Given his willingness to comply as far as he did why would he not comply one hundred percent in an attempt to avoid invasion? Unfortunatly there seems to be no logical reason why he would comply with 99% of the requirements and not just say "Ill comply with everything 100%". But a few interesting, however unlikely they might be, explanations... -ego: the guy had been in absolute power for a long time and was not used to people ordering him around. Anyone who says no to him would be shot on the spot . His ego, therefore, would not allow him to fully comply with the requirements of 1441. But then why comply at all? Or at least why comply to such a degree as he actually had? -Lack of SC will: Did he think the SC was bluffing? Did he think they wouldnt have the will to follow through with authorization? The language used in 1441 is incredibly strong so it would be a heck of a gamble. Not to mention back in the early 90's they had authorized force against him before when he hadnt realized that the Soviet Union no longer existed. Did he think the SC was divided and frozen again? Did he doubt that the unilateral Bush adminstration would move without SC authorization? Doubtful. -he thought he had something to hide: hey maybe he thought he actually had WMD and therefore couldnt comply 100%. Maybe his advisors were just too scared (of being shot) to tell him, "o hey boss you know those nukes we said we had.....umm ya we dont actually have them" -Did he actually not care cause he thought he could win the war? Nah he isnt that stupid. -Or did he think war was inevitable no matter if he complied 100% or not? But then why comply at all? Maybe just to drag things out a little for suspense....get a few more months in power? -security: to me the only argument that makes any sense. Lets face it, the middle east isnt the safest neighbourhood. Saddam has Israel on one side, Iran on the other. Maybe he was a little worried what these guys would do if they knew he didnt have any weapons at all. By complying as far as he did he hoped to appease the SC while still maintaining some form of a deterrant against others from attacking since they wouldnt know for sure that he lacked a credible arsenal. Anyone have any suggestions to exactly what he was thinking? Assuming he is a rational thinking dictator who wants to maintain power (which I believe to be true) why did he not comply 100 percent with resolution 1441?

a few thoughts regarding things Ive read in here.... Saddam Huessein posed little, arguably no, threat to any western nation. He was a dictator who was solely concerned with staying in power. He had nothing to gain from attacking any Western country. Even an attack through unconventional means (harder to find the guilty party) was not going to happen. Simple cost-benefit analysis. No benefits and the cost being the possibility of getting caught and subsequently invaded (with the blessings of even the French). The bigger threat to US security is Osama Bin Laden, I think he proved this much on September 11. The failure to catch him and then the moving onto a war to dispose of a dictator who posed little to no security threat is ridiclous. It proves either the Bush Adminstration is completely incompetent at protecting the United States or that they have other motives they consider more important. The failure of the Bush administration to bring justice to the man responsible for Septemeber 11 and allow him to still pose an enormous threat to America while they busy themselves with non-threats is criminal. The fact that this terrorist, who has caused 3000 deaths and openly asserts he will strike again, is on the loose is very relevant to the Iraq War debate. That is if the war was really about security. Someone argued that it may be necessary to give away some freedoms in our society because of terrorist threats. I ask you, is that not surrendering to the terrorists? If their goal is to make us change our way of life and our society, is not surrendering the freedoms that are so essential to our political beliefs the equivalent of waving the white flag? Someone argues that we should restrict muslims from our countries because they are a threat to security. Besides the 18 or 19 (whatever the exact number of 9/11 terrorists was) people responsible for the 9/11 attacks the vast majority of Muslims are productive, freedom loving members of our society. I dont know why I am even bothering responding to this comment since it is incredibly ignorant and borderline racist. Someone else suggested that Canada relies on the US for defense? I ask what has America ever protected Canada from? Who has ever invaded Canada that America had to jump in and save us? Who has ever threatened to invade Canada where the United States had to come to our aid to stop the attack? The one instance that pops to mind is equipment aid in helping Canada support the Afghanistan mission. But this mission was not protecting Canada. This mission was Canada coming to the aid, as an ally, of the United States after she was attacked. Canada was not attacked. If anything American foreign policy is a danger to Canada and makes us less secure as we are seen as a close ally. This notion that America protects Canada from anything is rubbish, completely lacking of any proof and pretty much unintelligent.

Isn't this the same party that accused the Liberals of poor fiscal management for having massive surpluses? Why do politicians of all stripes make it so easy to point out their hypocrisy? Either way Im all for paying down the debt. "Yield on 10 year Canadian government bonds is around 4%. That means the Canadian government is taxing Canadians (many of whom have a mortgage above 6%) to pay back debt at 4%." My knowledge of government debt isnt that great but wouldnt it be more prudent to pay off debt first where the interest is not going to domestic actors...paying interest to Canadians who have government bonds doesnt seem like it would be as bad as international debt. Maybe a tax cut to allow people to pay off their higher rate mortgages is better....but how many people would do that instead of using a tax cut on consumption?

-every party flip flops on something sooner or later, sometimes for political benefits sometimes because new facts/opinions have come forth -I honestly dont mind a party that isnt completely whipped into all supporting every decision....oh my individual MPs might have their own opinions, how terrible -The Liberals dont have a leader and therefore cant have an elections so could never have voted against the continuation of the mission if they wanted to -"And they have the nerve to act like their all "anti-war"."- by you then arguing that they cant make up their minds as a party when it comes to voting dispute that they are all antiwar? I guess you disputed your own comment enough that I dont need to say much more there -Ignatieff supported the war more for its humanitarian side and anyone who has read anything from him would know he is a bit of an interventionist....now find me something on the domestic side that puts him close to the tories cause the guy is probably more left of centre. I would think Ignatieff is much to into personal freedoms to run for the tories (I would recomend his book The Rights Revolution)

What I'm saying is that there isn't a snowball's chance that even a Democrat would sign this loony treaty. We have a functioning prosecutorial and court system and people are court-martialed regularly for such minor offenses as Abu Ghraib. We do not need our officials to be subject to the wims of the likes of Chirac, Chavez or Pol Pot. ICC must always allow domestic courts to prosecute if they are willing and able

Then why do many Arabs live peacefully and prosperously in Israel, vote in Israeli elections, and have full civil rights, except right to serve in Army? Why should the Jews have to accept any inferior status? Does every sliver of a people that the Arabs define as "separate" get a State at Israel's expense. How many Arab countries are there? How many more are needed? does every sliver of a people that the west define as "separate" get a state at the expense of arabs. the palestinians have just as much of a right to a state as Isreal has

I seriously doubt there will be intense efforts to go after every major politician and military leader. I do agree that Kissinger might have something to worry about. Bush junior as well. *snip* Though I doubt you personally have much international influence, the fact that any rational person (I assume you're rational) assumes that the elected leader of the greatest democracy in the world, and a former Secretary of State (even if a traitor to the US) could be subject to international arrest illustrates both why the US should never sign on, and why Canada should assist that non-joinder. Are you saying that a democratically elected leader is not capable of committing crimes against humanity? Or is it because he is leader of "the greatest democracy in the world" he should not have to be held accountable if he commits such crimes? Why should Canada assist in trying to protect anyone who may commit crimes against humanity? As a small to medium sized power would not setting international laws be in the best national interest of a small to medium sized power?

I am almost certain that the ICC's jurisdiction can NOT be retroactive..therefore anything that happened before the signing of the Rome statute (2002 I think) would be off limits. The US objects to the ICC because it erodes national soveriegnty (for a good cause but hey that doesnt bother the Bush administration. However, the ICC can only prosecute if the country of the offender is unable or unwilling. The US, obviously, would be more then capable with their current court system to prosecute so they can not be seen as unable. The fact that the country of the offender has first crack to prosecute safeguards against erosion of national soveriegnty. It is more likely that the US government just doesnt want to limit the tools that they give to their servicemen when they send them off to war. The other argument the US government puts forth is that there may be politically motivated prosecutions. Any member state that has ratified the Rome Statute would be able to refer a case to the ICC. However, the judges of the ICC are all well educated and experienced lawyers. There may be politically motivated referrals but the prosecutions would be based on law. Now, obviously different opinions on how laws should be interpreteted will always exist but the ICC isn't going to throw anyone in jail without clear guilt of a crime. The US refusal to support a court that attempts to hold individuals responsible for their crimes against humanity is just another example of their unilateral foreign policy. The US, as the main superpower with overwhelming hard power has no reason to subject itself to any international law. Building a world based on multilateralism has no benefit to a country that is interested in maintaining itself and furthering its empire.

Last time I checked we still lived in a democracy. It is absolutly necessary to question our government on everything. The opposition parties and the media have a duty to question all policies and whether they are the right course of action. Questioning whether we should be at war has nothing to do with not supporting our troops. Questioning whether they should be off dieing somewhere has nothing to do with not supporting them. That being said this questioning should be done in the house. Layton especially is using this issue through the media as a tool to gain political support. At the same time though I believe he is doing this because of what he believes is the best policy for our government and our troops and I can respect his right to believe this (while disagreeing with him). Anyone who wants to shutdown debate ought to pack up and head off to some facist country for awhile. Not having debate is weakening our democracy and surrendering to the terrorists we are fighting. To come home now and to allow Afghanistan to fall back to its old ways would be a huge insult to the men who have given their lifes to secure peace for Afghanis and for us as well (by crushing a government that supported terrorists who had attacked our ally and closest trading partner). This war is morally justified and it is necessary for our country to come to the aid of our allies when they are attacked. For the record, the legal justification for being in Afghanistan is no longer that it was a UN authorized mission. The legal argument as put forth by the Canadian government is that we are there at the request of the democratically elected government in Afghanistan. Intervention at the request of governments is allowed for under international law.

I would suggest that instead of being controlled by Western powers it is controlled by countries that are anti-Western. This is definitely a disfunctional organization and one that is biased in favour of Extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and dictatorships and totalitarian regimes such as Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Iran. Let's not forget it was the U.N. who sponsored a bumper-sticker campaign aimed at Palestinian youth just as Israel was pulling out of the Gaza Strip. Those stickers bore the phrase: TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. These stickers and banners were paid for with U.N. funds, and that campaign did nothing but stoke the fires of violence. For the U.N. to fulfill it's andate it needs to be unbiased, and it needs to be transparent, something it is not at this point. It is a failed organization and should be disbanded, and reformed with members from democratic countries ONLY. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North korea, are but some examples of countries that have no business being made member states, until such time as they have freely democratically elected governments, and they adhere to the Human Right's Charter. These particular countries have been made members although they have very poor records in the area of human rights. While we're at it we might want to look at Koffi himself and that of his son's involvement in the Oil for Food scandal regarding Iraq. While we're at it what about the Mercedes which was purchased by Koffi's son with U.N. funding. Neither Koffi, his son nor anyone else has been willing to even talk about that. "dictatorships and totalitarian regimes such as Venezuela" do some research before you post....Chavez (elected by universal suffrage) enjoys popular opinion that Harper and Bush can only dream of posting completely incorrect facts as truths leads to confusion as people read that kind of junk and assume it to be true call venezuela a weak democracy but a dictatorship/totalitarian regime it is not

just for clarity you mean the ICC not the ICJ? correct?

I bet Bradco supports intervention and capture of that hooligan, don't you bradco? Or do the rules only apply to our side, and the terrorist crazies over there can say what they wish? my crazy liberal side tells me: He definetly needed some sort of punishment for that kind of blatant disregard for international law intervention might not be appropriate action for punishment for making threats to the territorial integrity of another country, Ill save that for when there actually is a violation of the terrirtorial integrity. That being said there needs to be action against ALL leaders who break laws. If I threaten to wipe my neighbour off the face of the planet Ill probably be getting a call from the police and rightfully so. Amadinejad really got me going this week standing up in front of the GA and arguing we need to reform the SC.....whats the point of reforming if you refuse to obey the most basic areed upon rules of international law....penalties (maybe some sort of fine for comments like his) handed done by the ICJ would be a solution (in a perfect world). With no reliable enforcement international law is a game of power and self-interest on a case to case basis. This is the problem with building a liberal internationalist, idealist institution in a world clearly defined by realism.....props for any success the UN can have.

I would argue that even the so-called "good" parts of the UN are destructive. They are all extremely expensive, with overhead ratios that would put March of Dimes and United Way to shame. Even worse, to the extent that their largesse isn't absorbed by overhead or baksheesh-seeking "leaders" in recipient countries, the actual donors are being deprived of credit for helping. The people in the miserable, earthquake stricken Pakistani or Indonesian villages have no idea that their benefactors, the real contributors, the US and Japanese taxpayers, are vilified by their representatives daily at the UN. In a vain attempt to appease mass media like the New York Times, Toronto Star, BBC and CBC. It should, must and ultimately will be abolished. "It should, must and ultimately will be abolished." ya really we dont want to at least attempt some form of international cooperation, at least attempt to put forth and follow laws governing armed conflict......its much better to say the hell with it and go back to slogging it out on the battlefield..... maybe you should realize why the UN was formed....because the leaders who actually lived through the horrors of the second world war wanted to save our sorry asses from its unimaginable destruction...its right in the preamble to the charter "we the peoples of the united nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind"...sounds like pretty honourable intentions to me, too bad theres to many nations (one in particular) concerned primarily with their own self-interest to care about humanity. Ya the UN has its problems and is dysfunctional but its the only option and Ill take it over nothing any day of the week. Because to pick nothing is to pick a state of anarchy that has proven itself time and time again through human history to not be conducive to international peace.

It's kind of a tried and true attention getter. Direct, and to the point. No need to ask for clarification. its also technically illegal....but hey thats coming from my crazy liberal side that still wants a fair and sustainable international legal system that enforces its rules....not in tune with the reality that we have a superpower that just doesn't care

"In fact, the Allied support for national liberation within the enemy camp was no less fraudulent than Germany's hypocritical pose as the champion of the Muslims and other subject nationalities under the rule of Britain, France and Russia. The British government's promise of support for the independance of Turkey's Arab provinces was flatly contradicted by agreements made in the course of the war, which provided for the partition of the non-Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire among England, France, Italy and Russia. To complicate further the post-war situation in the Ottoman domains, an official declaration by Britain's foregin secretary, Arthur Balfour, in November 1917 endorsed the proposal advanced by the European proponents of Zionism for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine- a Turkish-controlled territory on the eastern Meditteranean, which at the time contained roughly 60,000 Jewish inhabitants out of a total population of 750,000 who were mainly Arab" from: The Twentieth-Century World: An International History (Cdn edition), William Keylor and Jerry Bannister, Oxford University Press, 2005. (page 49) I dont know is Oxford University Press considered reliable?

What's the problem here? They left Pakistan with a choice, stop harbouring terrorists or be blown back to the stone age. Their ball. some people might have a problem with the wording.... I think they could have been a little bit more diplomatic