U.N.'s Annan, in Pitt speech, critical of war

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20031021annanp2.asp

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today criticized the United States for going to war against Iraq without international authorization, but in a speech in Pittsburgh he also called on member nations to acknowledge the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that he says drove the U.S. to unilateral action.

Annan, in Pittsburgh to deliver the annual Drue Heinz Lecture at the University of Pittsburgh, essentially restated his previous views on the Iraq war, which the U.S. and Great Britain undertook despite a refusal by the U.N. Security Council to authorize the final effort that ousted Saddam Hussein.

"Many people find it troubling and confusing when the United States appears to abandon the very international instruments that bear its mark and are so closely identified with the ideals and objectives inspired by this country," Annan told an audience of 1,500 gathered at Soldiers and Sailors Hall in Oakland. "The war in Iraq upset a great many people, because they saw two permanent members of the Security Council taking military action without the support of the Council as a whole, or of the wider membership of the United Nations."

[ixion]

1. Annan shouldn't give Bush's 'War on Terror' any credibility

It is an ill-fated concept, no matter how good (or devious) the intentions may be. Simply put, you cannot declare 'war' on an abstraction. And as long as the UN pays lip service to it, the longer we will be caught in a perpetual war.

[Paschall]

3. Lip service? I don't read it that way

<snip> "It is up to all those who believe in a collective system of security to show that these concerns, such as the fear of terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction, can still be addressed more effectively through collective action," Annan said. </snip>

Note Annan says the concern is the "fear of terrorists." I read that not as sanctionning the notion of "war on terror," but as pointing to the fear (trumped up or no) that resulted in this fiasco. If the UN inspectors had been allowed to do their job, the fear Iraq inspired could have been dispelled. It's a subtle point, but one I think worth mentionning. I don't believe the UN has endorsed in any way the administration's "war on terra" rhetoric, but it does recognize that weapons of mass destruction (like conventional weapons, including small firearms) are a threat to world peace and civilian populations the UN was established to protect.

[TheLastMohican]

5. Forget it. Invasion of Iraq was a done deal with inspectors or without

Bush administration was just wasting time to properly organize and gather the needed military strength in the area.
Even if Saddam would come with his pants down to show that he hides no WMDs the invasion would still proceed. You don't gather a force that eats at least 1 billion dollars a week just for maintenance and then disband them in a peaceful solution.
By the way where are the missing 8000 pages our of 11600 pages from Iraqi WMD report? We haven't seen any of those lately.

[ninkasi]

2. US under Bush

has abandoned international instruments. In addition, Whistle Ass wanted to wage war with Iraq before 9-11. It doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, except create more recruits against the US. It's got everything to do with following the PNAC plans.

[GalleryGod]

4. Sorry! Thought Will Pitt and Kofi Had a Joint Appearance!?

:silly: