Article

2003-04-08 International

Iraq not a "treasure chest," UN warns US, UK

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-04-08 10:43 am|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 After the surrender of Japan, MacArthur became head of the military government of Japan. The Soviet Union demanded a part of the post-war dealings with Japan. MacArthur ignored the USSR and made things happen. This is the same thing that we face now in Iraq. Let the Kofi Klub say anything they want for as long as they want, all they do is speed up global warming. We'll get the work done.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-04-08 11:00:32|| 2003-04-08 11:00:32|| Front Page Top

#2 This a*&hole's significance diminishes with every word he speaks. They'll still be ankle-biting when it's a done deal...like next week. What are you going to do, Tharoor boy? take Baghdad international airport from us? Take the Port facilities? You ccome in when we say so, and you'll know your place - at the rear

Posted by Frank G 2003-04-08 11:04:07|| 2003-04-08 11:04:07|| Front Page Top

#3 The UN takes itself very seriously,except for that piece of paper which says Convention...Human Rights...something.You know what I mean.In other news,UN officials demanded today that the National Socialist party be reinstated into power in Germany.

Posted by El Id 2003-04-08 11:26:53|| 2003-04-08 11:26:53|| Front Page Top

#4 the kind of rhetoric coming from this guy doesnt make it any easier for Blair to support a UN role. Tends to work against Kofi's goals. Perhaps the guy has his own agenda - the UN secretariat has its own internal politics too.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-08 11:28:12|| 2003-04-08 11:28:12|| Front Page Top

#5 We do need to watch our step, however, I think the traditional response is you and what army?

How about a little respect for the hegemon Shashi ol' boy?

Posted by Hiryu 2003-04-08 11:37:09|| 2003-04-08 11:37:09|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeah, only the UN can decide what countries are treasure chests to be divided up, preferably with them getting the biggest cut.

Posted by tu3031 2003-04-08 11:42:47|| 2003-04-08 11:42:47|| Front Page Top

#7 He also said that the UK and American governments had no rights under international law to change Iraqi society or politics or to use their economic resources.

Translate as: You can't do it if you don;t get our approval and we won't give it.

The Anglo-American forces had rights and responsibilities of any occupying power, but "they really have no rights under the Geneva Conventions to transform the society or the polity or to exploit its economic resources," the undersecretary-general said. "If they do need more they need to come to the Security Council to get the backing of international law for anything more ambitious than merely being an occupying power in the military sense," he warned.

Translation: We want our cut and if you don't give us our cut we'll hold our breath and stomp our feet until we turn blue and pass out, so there!

This is just another of thousands of reasons to abandon the UN to its own devices, tell 'em to get the hell out of the US, and tell 'em to get bent in the process. Pompous asshelmets like the Undersecretary think, and will continue to think until we show them different, that they run the world and continue to believe that sovereign states should give up their sovereign rights to the likes of them. They want to give the UN the right to tax the citizens of sovereign nations to support the UN and its activities. Naturally, the citizens of the US would pay more than their fair share, as we already do to participate in the UN and its activities.

The more I hear, the more this organization has to go.

Posted by FOTSGreg 2003-04-08 11:43:45|| 2003-04-08 11:43:45|| Front Page Top

#8 This un speak for leave international socialism alone, we should all recognize by now that the un has become the home of the International, where former friends project the lefts values across an unwitting population. This is the story not being told, but in essence, this is all about the continuation of the cold war between right and wrong (the left). EU is posturing for hegemony over member states constituions one government at a time. Then use those elected shills to subvert the US Constituion from within our own shores. Make No Mistake, the u n needs to be dismantled as we now know it.

Posted by AnonymousLy yours 2003-04-08 11:44:42|| 2003-04-08 11:44:42|| Front Page Top

#9 This from the gas bags wo have been raking in the money over the oil for food program.

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2003-04-08 13:04:32|| [www.douglasdebono.com] 2003-04-08 13:04:32|| Front Page Top

#10 Please send our answer in six large ALCM missiles, targeted for the 3rd floor of the United Nations building in New York, preferably coming in on the sea side, so there won't be any need to junk and jive. ALCM's have larger warheads than Tomahawks, and equal targeting prowess. After the initial bang, we'll clean up the mess, and build a nice park. Have a GREAT Air Force day...

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-08 13:26:36|| 2003-04-08 13:26:36|| Front Page Top

#11 Sure, bring it up in front of the Security Council. Let it come up for debate, and then we can declare that we will veto anything they propose before we even read it. We can play that game, too.
Just deal with them like you deal with any children's temper tantrum. Ignore it, and eventually they'll get exhausted and shut the hell up.

Posted by Former Russian Major 2003-04-08 15:16:52|| 2003-04-08 15:16:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Are you even surprised by these people? The same ones who defiantly protected Saddam, want to determine who gets what. I think it should be on a sliding scale. Those who helped Free Iraq the most get the best contracts and those who help the lest get a proportional amount. I am sure the UN, France, Germany, and Russia would never soil themselves witht the profits of an 'illlegal' war such as this.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2003-04-08 17:17:07|| 2003-04-08 17:17:07|| Front Page Top

#13 This is all about Oiiiil! Food for Oil to be specific. The UN was making a tidy profit on Iraq and now they are bleeding. They will try to hold Iraq for ransom with the $40bil hiding in French banks. That money will disappear into French debt repayment and UN admin charges before it ever gets back to an "illegitimate" Iraq. Listen to the words but watch the cash change hands.

Posted by john 2003-04-08 19:39:47|| 2003-04-08 19:39:47|| Front Page Top

#14 Yeah. But what he said makes sense. Is this just a cheering society here? Do any of you believe there
is such a thing as international law? Before you
answer too quickly, recall that the U.S. Declaration
of Independence, and the Constitution, are founded
on "natural rights." In other words, "God-given law." In other words, international law.

Posted by Bruce 2003-04-08 22:13:35|| 2003-04-08 22:13:35|| Front Page Top

#15 Er, Bruce, I think that "international law" is a concept that came about after 1880. Prior to that, we basically had, for want of a better term, "gentlemen's agreements" ie. the Geneva
and treaties. International law is simply the more formal continuation of this idea, mainly, the rules that regulate a nation's conduct with another. These laws do NOT technically determine a country's internal laws, at least not according to the classic definition of international law.

The Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, et al, are based on common law. Common law, as practiced in English-speaking countries, derives from the idea of custom and precedent, not "natural law".

Natural law is a later concept (around the 15th century or so), that states that there are certain principles that are binding on society in addition to or in absence of existing law. We can argue till the cows come home if this is "God-given law", but it is by no means international law.

Natural law influenced the documents you mention, but they are still based on good ol' English common law. OK, Louisiana is a special case due to the influence of the French, but let's not get too technical here.

Therefore, I submit that international law ain't part of any of our founding documents, or Britain's, or damn near any other country I can think of.

*Whew, I need a tequila after that.....and I DON'T mean Jose Cuervo*

I leave it to the rest of you to state if this is a cheering section. Discuss amongst yourselves.....

Posted by Former Russian Major 2003-04-08 23:08:08|| 2003-04-08 23:08:08|| Front Page Top

#16 Ok, that should have been "Geneva Convention", don't know why that didn't work with the rest of the above.

Posted by Former Russian Major 2003-04-08 23:10:17|| 2003-04-08 23:10:17|| Front Page Top

12:11 Anonymous
11:06 raptor
01:23 Anonymous
01:05 Anonymous
01:05 Anonymous
01:01 Anonymous
01:01 Anonymous
23:52 PD
23:46 anon1
23:39 PD
23:31 PD
23:23 Tresho
23:10 Former Russian Major
23:08 Former Russian Major
22:47 anon1
22:35 marek
22:28 B.
22:27 Fred
22:13 Bruce
21:58 Parabellum
21:55 Reed
21:53 Reed
21:52 Reed
21:52 Fred