Annan Warns Bush Against Unilateral Attack on Iraq - GoFuckYourself.com

cinsitycash · 02-08-2003, 08:03 PM

Reuters
Saturday, February 8, 2003; 2:43 PM

By Tim McGlone

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the United States on Saturday against attacking Iraq on its own, arguing collective action under a U.N. umbrella would have greater legitimacy and better odds of success.

In an address marking the 310th anniversary of William and Mary College, Annan also stressed that force should be used only as a last resort.

But if the U.N. Security Council concludes, after a key report by U.N. inspectors due on Friday, that Iraq is not disarming as required by council resolutions, "the council must face up to its responsibilities," he said.

"This is an issue not for any one state alone, but for the international community as a whole," Annan said. "When states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council," he said.

"When there is strong U.S. leadership, exercised through patient diplomatic persuasion and coalition-building, the United Nations is successful -- and the United States is successful," he said. "The United Nations is most useful to all its members, including the United States, when it is united and works as a source of collective action rather than discord," he said.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the college's chancellor, also endorsed U.N. diplomacy as the appropriate approach to the crisis in Iraq in brief remarks.

As the two men spoke, some two dozen people outside the hall staged a peaceful protest against war on Iraq.

President Bush has warned Baghdad that time is running out for it to disarm on its own and is sending troops and equipment to the region in preparation for a possible war.

The U.S. administration has argued it needs no further action by the Security Council to disarm Iraq by force under Resolution 1441 adopted on Nov. 8 and other resolutions.

But Bush has left open the door to an additional council measure authorizing military action, although it is far from clear at this time that such a measure could garner the necessary nine votes and no vetoes in the 15-nation council to be adopted.

France, in particular, has warned repeatedly that force should be used only after all possibilities for a peaceful resolution of the crisis have been exhausted, and has made clear its view that that point has not yet been reached.

Annan warned that war "is always a human catastrophe" and said the entire international community -- including "first and foremost the leaders of Iraq itself -- have a duty to prevent this if we possibly can."

He said Secretary of State Colin Powell had made a "strong" presentation to the council last Wednesday on Iraqi arms programs that had "undoubtedly strengthened" the hand of chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei as they once again this weekend pressed Baghdad to more fully cooperate with their efforts.

But if Iraq "fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its defiance, the council ... must face up to its responsibilities," he said.

"Our (U.N.) founders were not pacifists. They knew there would be times when force must be met by force," he said.

As Annan wrapped up his speech, a heckler jumped to his feet to ask Annan why the United Nations was not pressing Israel to disarm as forcefully as it was Baghdad. But his remarks were drowned out by applause.

FUCK YOU COFFEECUP ANNAN

FlyingIguana · 02-08-2003, 08:10 PM

he's right, the states should not engage until the UN says to. thats why the UN is there.

rooster · 02-08-2003, 08:12 PM

The UN is worthless though.

picindex · 02-08-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
The UN is worthless though.

yeah...

cinsitycash · 02-08-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

he's right, the states should not engage until the UN says to. thats why the UN is there.

The UN is there to try to secure the "world". No soverign nation has no reason to abide by "International Law" Maybe you can go do it, but we're not.

ChrisH · 02-08-2003, 08:21 PM

It may seem like I am harping on this. BUT...

The UN just installed Lybia as the head of the Human Rights Commission.

Does that seem insane to anyone else? Or is it just me?

bhutocracy · 02-08-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
The UN is worthless though.

you'd think they could find some way to at least appear like a real and legitimate answer. Currently people are just looking to it as a way to not appear hawkish or share in the consequences of this action. It's just something for countries to ignore when it suits them and get behind when it advantages them.
the UN stood by and chatted while Indonesia backed militia murdered East Timorese. It really sucks that it makes itself redundant as I believe it should be able to fulfill and incredibly important function.

UnseenWorld · 02-08-2003, 08:43 PM

I wonder if Mr. Annan would be taking the same stance if the two airliners had ripped into the UN tower instead of the Trade Towers?

Simon-interaid · 02-08-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld
I wonder if Mr. Annan would be taking the same stance if the two airliners had ripped into the UN tower instead of the Trade Towers?

What in the hell does that have anything to do with war in iraq?

Joe Sixpack · 02-08-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld
I wonder if Mr. Annan would be taking the same stance if the two airliners had ripped into the UN tower instead of the Trade Towers?

Bwahahahahaaha!

Sounds like you've been well and truly sucked into the war machine propaganda.

Where are all the Americans with minds of their own?

Scootermuze · 02-08-2003, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cinsitycash

France, in particular, has warned repeatedly that force should be used only after all possibilities for a peaceful resolution of the crisis have been exhausted, and has made clear its view that that point has not yet been reached.

The last time France tried using 'all possibilities for a peaceful resolution'... Germany shoved tanks up Paris' ass...

Guess they didn't learn that waiting for the 'best' way isn't always the .. best way...

archer · 02-08-2003, 10:16 PM

hmmm.... do u think that annan's statement has George Bush shaking in his boots?

I DON'T THINK SO. NOT!!!!!!!!!

XXXManager · 02-09-2003, 12:13 AM

HEY PEOPLE!!!!!
Want to hear a joke???????
.
.
.
.
.
.
UN

dav555add · 02-09-2003, 12:24 AM

The United Nations are a joke, a country like Syria, who we know is a peace loving, on the UN security council, or what about Iraq being chairman very shortly of the "disarmament commission"

Who gives a rat's ass about what koffi thinks? He should take care of his brothers back in Africa who are dying of hunger by the thousands every day. But he's too busy protecting saddam. So, fuck the UN

Fire · 02-09-2003, 01:05 AM

In the end, Mr. Annan will endorse a resolution passed by the security counsel that will authorize force. The UN has no choice... authorize force to make it APPEAR that you actually do something, or oppose force and let the world see that you REALLY do nothing!

kevinl · 02-09-2003, 02:07 AM

Wasnt the reason the league of nations disbanded because it failed to act.

JayJay · 02-09-2003, 06:22 AM

sure was

xpander · 02-09-2003, 07:00 AM

You all realize that a war in Iraq means _MORE_ terrorism in the near future... right?

It will just de-stabilize the region... besides our own CIA director admitted months ago that Saddam and his men were more likely to use reported "weapons of mass destruction" if we attacked him. How's that for imminent threat???

Russia, China, Germany, France... all favor inspections to continue... that plus 40-50% of Americans depending on which poll you want to read. How can America be ignorant of these facts?

http://www.fpif.org

Drop Bush, Not Bombs.

[x]

XXXManager · 02-09-2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xpander
You all realize that a war in Iraq means _MORE_ terrorism in the near future... right?
Russia, China, Germany, France... all favor inspections to continue... that plus 40-50% of Americans depending on which poll you want to read. How can America be ignorant of these facts?

Spoken like a truec.. chicken

Wake up buddy - there are parts in the world who suffer daily multiple terror attacks and attempts for suicide bombing etc..
There are countries constantly under the threat of terrorism from several fronts. And there are countries like the US only starting to wake up to the realization of the enevadablity of the things to come. You sound like a cancer patient saying "Tumers? I'm not sure. Why go through all those radiation projections? Maybe they are friendly????? who said tumers must be bad?"

* Russia - Invested alot of money in iraq oil infrastructure and is affraid to loose it for instability in Iraq. But the russian dumbasses suffer constant terror from Groznians and Chechnians - and guess how they deal with them?
* China - How did they treat their students? How democratic and free are they? They sell ammunition to Iraq. China is hardly a country who's support one should take into account when fighting terrorism
Germany - Their leader got to power through a campaign based on anti-american propaganda. He promised his voters - some 2 months ago - to be against the war with Iraq.
France - hehe. Thats a joke. This country devestated the pacific ocean island habitats with atomic experimemnts without asking the people leaving there. The foreign minister of france openly supported palestinian terror organizations.

As to 50% of the americans. Even if that number is true - supporting inspections is not saying they are against taking Saddam down. We all support inspections and disarming saddam. But the realistic ones know this is not working and the only option to take such a dictator down is by force.

WAKE UP

cinsitycash · 02-09-2003, 10:59 AM

This is funny how you say people who agree with conservatives don't have a mind of their own. In that case, you use all the talking points as the left does. The reason why we choose our sides is because that's our choice. So how can we not think for ourselves? If we wanted to become liberal communazis, we could have. And please, if you live in another country and you are crying about our political system....just sit back and thank god we support you.

at YOUR COUNTRY

Darin · 02-09-2003, 11:01 AM

Bomb that motherfucker. UN can kiss our ass.

FlyingIguana · 02-09-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cinsitycash

The UN is there to try to secure the "world". No soverign nation has no reason to abide by "International Law" Maybe you can go do it, but we're not.

the states expects iraq to follow the UN, but the states doesn't?

Rui · 02-09-2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

Bwahahahahaaha!

Sounds like you've been well and truly sucked into the war machine propaganda.

Where are all the Americans with minds of their own?

so true!

It seems most people that defend war in here just want to see soldiers killing people just for the fun, like they want to be in a age where there was a war...

rooster · 02-09-2003, 11:28 AM

I disagree with the anti war group for a variety of reasons.

- They are politicizing this war. They know they will have a hard time defeating bush in the next election, so they figure try to do as much damage to him as possible. Kind of sickening.

- They bitch and moan about it being just for oil, yet drive their SUV's and don't want to drill here at home to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

- They use the argument about how thousands of innocent civillian iraqis will be killed. They are already being killed by saddams bloody reign. They are starving because of saddam. And a lot of the civillians that will be killed in war are those people that saddam intentional places by targets, and then use their deaths as propaganda.

- They use the argument that it will lead to more terroist attacks here. So its better to appease terroists rather than confront them? That is backwards un-american thinking.

directfiesta · 02-09-2003, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rooster
I disagree with the anti war group for a variety of reasons.

- They are politicizing this war. [/QUOTE

Lol. got a small surge of brain activity? Turn it off before you say more insepid remarks.

When you are of age to vote, you can then talk of "politicizing" . in about 10 years.... Meanwhile go play with GI Joe...

Sly_RJ · 02-09-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rui

It seems most people that defend war in here just want to see soldiers killing people just for the fun, like they want to be in a age where there was a war...

Not quite.

The ones defending war simply realize that sitting around on your ass "discussing" solutions doesn't accomplish anything.

You can talk or you can walk.

directfiesta · 02-09-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

Not quite.

The ones defending war simply realize that sitting around on your ass "discussing" solutions doesn't accomplish anything.

You can talk or you can walk.

So Bush is idiot, because this is what he is doing with North Korea.

02-08-2003, 08:03 PM	#1
cinsitycash Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 27	Annan Warns Bush Against Unilateral Attack on Iraq Reuters Saturday, February 8, 2003; 2:43 PM By Tim McGlone WILLIAMSBURG, Va. (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the United States on Saturday against attacking Iraq on its own, arguing collective action under a U.N. umbrella would have greater legitimacy and better odds of success. In an address marking the 310th anniversary of William and Mary College, Annan also stressed that force should be used only as a last resort. But if the U.N. Security Council concludes, after a key report by U.N. inspectors due on Friday, that Iraq is not disarming as required by council resolutions, "the council must face up to its responsibilities," he said. "This is an issue not for any one state alone, but for the international community as a whole," Annan said. "When states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council," he said. "When there is strong U.S. leadership, exercised through patient diplomatic persuasion and coalition-building, the United Nations is successful -- and the United States is successful," he said. "The United Nations is most useful to all its members, including the United States, when it is united and works as a source of collective action rather than discord," he said. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the college's chancellor, also endorsed U.N. diplomacy as the appropriate approach to the crisis in Iraq in brief remarks. As the two men spoke, some two dozen people outside the hall staged a peaceful protest against war on Iraq. President Bush has warned Baghdad that time is running out for it to disarm on its own and is sending troops and equipment to the region in preparation for a possible war. The U.S. administration has argued it needs no further action by the Security Council to disarm Iraq by force under Resolution 1441 adopted on Nov. 8 and other resolutions. But Bush has left open the door to an additional council measure authorizing military action, although it is far from clear at this time that such a measure could garner the necessary nine votes and no vetoes in the 15-nation council to be adopted. France, in particular, has warned repeatedly that force should be used only after all possibilities for a peaceful resolution of the crisis have been exhausted, and has made clear its view that that point has not yet been reached. Annan warned that war "is always a human catastrophe" and said the entire international community -- including "first and foremost the leaders of Iraq itself -- have a duty to prevent this if we possibly can." He said Secretary of State Colin Powell had made a "strong" presentation to the council last Wednesday on Iraqi arms programs that had "undoubtedly strengthened" the hand of chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei as they once again this weekend pressed Baghdad to more fully cooperate with their efforts. But if Iraq "fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its defiance, the council ... must face up to its responsibilities," he said. "Our (U.N.) founders were not pacifists. They knew there would be times when force must be met by force," he said. As Annan wrapped up his speech, a heckler jumped to his feet to ask Annan why the United Nations was not pressing Israel to disarm as forcefully as it was Baghdad. But his remarks were drowned out by applause. FUCK YOU COFFEECUP ANNAN __________________ http://cell.mp3update.com PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR AND LISTEN TO THIS DEMO. PLEASE TELL ME YOUR FEEDBACK WHEN YOU LISTEN TO IT. YOU CAN POST ON GFY IF YOU WANT TOO.

02-08-2003, 08:43 PM	#8
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	I wonder if Mr. Annan would be taking the same stance if the two airliners had ripped into the UN tower instead of the Trade Towers? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

02-08-2003, 10:16 PM	#12
archer Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,721	hmmm.... do u think that annan's statement has George Bush shaking in his boots? I DON'T THINK SO. NOT!!!!!!!!! __________________ Looking to promote uncut cock? Check out Uncut Cash. It rocks.

02-09-2003, 02:07 AM	#16
kevinl Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: US Posts: 261	Wasnt the reason the league of nations disbanded because it failed to act. __________________ kevinl

02-09-2003, 10:59 AM	#20
cinsitycash Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 27	This is funny how you say people who agree with conservatives don't have a mind of their own. In that case, you use all the talking points as the left does. The reason why we choose our sides is because that's our choice. So how can we not think for ourselves? If we wanted to become liberal communazis, we could have. And please, if you live in another country and you are crying about our political system....just sit back and thank god we support you. at YOUR COUNTRY __________________ http://cell.mp3update.com PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR AND LISTEN TO THIS DEMO. PLEASE TELL ME YOUR FEEDBACK WHEN YOU LISTEN TO IT. YOU CAN POST ON GFY IF YOU WANT TOO.

02-08-2003, 08:10 PM	#2
FlyingIguana aspiring banker Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 10,870	he's right, the states should not engage until the UN says to. thats why the UN is there.

02-08-2003, 08:12 PM	#3
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	The UN is worthless though.

02-08-2003, 08:21 PM	#6
ChrisH Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New York Posts: 1,355	It may seem like I am harping on this. BUT... The UN just installed Lybia as the head of the Human Rights Commission. Does that seem insane to anyone else? Or is it just me?

02-09-2003, 12:13 AM	#13
XXXManager So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy Posts: 893	HEY PEOPLE!!!!! Want to hear a joke??????? . . . . . . UN

02-09-2003, 12:24 AM	#14
dav555add Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 3,427	The United Nations are a joke, a country like Syria, who we know is a peace loving, on the UN security council, or what about Iraq being chairman very shortly of the "disarmament commission" Who gives a rat's ass about what koffi thinks? He should take care of his brothers back in Africa who are dying of hunger by the thousands every day. But he's too busy protecting saddam. So, fuck the UN

02-09-2003, 01:05 AM	#15
Fire Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 486	In the end, Mr. Annan will endorse a resolution passed by the security counsel that will authorize force. The UN has no choice... authorize force to make it APPEAR that you actually do something, or oppose force and let the world see that you REALLY do nothing!

02-09-2003, 06:22 AM	#17
JayJay Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 3,739	sure was

02-09-2003, 07:00 AM	#18
xpander Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 14	You all realize that a war in Iraq means _MORE_ terrorism in the near future... right? It will just de-stabilize the region... besides our own CIA director admitted months ago that Saddam and his men were more likely to use reported "weapons of mass destruction" if we attacked him. How's that for imminent threat??? Russia, China, Germany, France... all favor inspections to continue... that plus 40-50% of Americans depending on which poll you want to read. How can America be ignorant of these facts? http://www.fpif.org Drop Bush, Not Bombs. [x]

02-09-2003, 11:01 AM	#21
Darin Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 345	Bomb that motherfucker. UN can kiss our ass. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

02-09-2003, 11:28 AM	#24
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	I disagree with the anti war group for a variety of reasons. - They are politicizing this war. They know they will have a hard time defeating bush in the next election, so they figure try to do as much damage to him as possible. Kind of sickening. - They bitch and moan about it being just for oil, yet drive their SUV's and don't want to drill here at home to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. - They use the argument about how thousands of innocent civillian iraqis will be killed. They are already being killed by saddams bloody reign. They are starving because of saddam. And a lot of the civillians that will be killed in war are those people that saddam intentional places by targets, and then use their deaths as propaganda. - They use the argument that it will lead to more terroist attacks here. So its better to appease terroists rather than confront them? That is backwards un-american thinking.

02-09-2003, 11:37 AM	#25
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,687	[QUOTE]Originally posted by rooster I disagree with the anti war group for a variety of reasons. - They are politicizing this war. [/QUOTE Lol. got a small surge of brain activity? Turn it off before you say more insepid remarks. When you are of age to vote, you can then talk of "politicizing" . in about 10 years.... Meanwhile go play with GI Joe...