Iraq worse than civil war: Annan

[CBC News]

The situation in Iraq is much worse than a civil war, said United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in a candid interview in his final few weeks on the job.

More...

 

[gopher]

Annan is correct. But his subtle hints aren't good enough: if he had any real guts he should openly blame Bush and call for a Nuremburg tribunal.

 

[Curiosity]

Ah yes - Annan at his best being requested to make one of his world changing statements....

I can hardly wait (not).

 

[Tonington]

Jeez, you gotta love that media...The situation is hardly any different than it was say two months ago. One person mentions Civil war, and you have everyone with an opinion coming out and claiming it is. Where were these opinions 2 months ago? I think it's looked like a civil war for a long time now, but if you want to start using semantics as politicians do....

 

[Curiosity]

Plagiarism runs rampant at the Big Daddy in Noo Yuk....

The bosses at the N.Y. Times have requested their journalists (ha) please dig up original stories instead of copying news from the local papers which get all the "inside stuff" over the flagship - Times....

Journalists and reporters have become the bottom of the barrel in the media world....

 

[Tonington]

That's a sad thing too. Who is supposed to ask the hard questions and the harder follow-up questions. I used to ponder a career in Journalism, but there isn't enough free media for my liking, as in a wide base for reporting to.

 

[#juan]

How many times was it said, by many people, before the invasion of Iraq, that knocking out Saddam's government would create a political vacuum and civil war would be the result? Bush and Rummy knew better. Didn't they?

 

[Tonington]

Is it even possible to find any person who has any intelligence background that has not been touched by scandals in their past somewhere? You'd think that these fellows who end up as the secretary of defense would remember what happened in their past. Yet they still make mistakes made earlier, by themselves and their predecessors.

 

[thomaska]

Ah yes - Annan at his best being requested to make one of his world changing statements....

I can hardly wait (not).

Do you think we'll get a "condemn" or a "strongly condemn" statement this time?:laughing7:

 

[#juan]

Do you think we'll get a "condemn" or a "strongly condemn" statement this time?:laughing7:

If you don't, you should. I don't know how you can cheer and make light of the fact that your government has brought about the deaths of a million people. Not only that, but the civil war you were warned about, is now happening with a vengence. About a hundred Iraqis being killed every day now. Are you happy about that as well?

God help us.

 

[thomaska]

If you don't, you should. I don't know how you can cheer and make light of the fact that your government has brought about the deaths of a million people. Not only that, but the civil war you were warned about, is now happening with a vengence. About a hundred Iraqis being killed every day now. Are you happy about that as well?

God help us.

Didn't see where I made light of anything except the almighty Annan that you all worship so much.

But I suppose things look different from atop that moral high ground you have sole lordship over.

 

[tracy]

I don't see why it matters what they are calling it. Even Rumsfeld apparently thinks things are going poorly. Instead of arguing over the language they use to describe the situation, maybe they could offer suggestions or resources to improve it. Regardless of how this all started, no one should want to see it continue to go badly (no matter how much they dislike Bush).

 

[earth_as_one]

Some quotes by Annan about Iraq:

16 September 2004
Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

A little late but clearly stated.

Here's what Annan sad about Iraq before the war:

2003, 13 January

Q: I wonder what concerns you more - North Korea or Iraq - as the world's senior diplomat, as you begin your New Year here?
SG: I think both are of concern. We will have to try and deal with both as effectively as we can and to avoid any major escalation.
Q: Is North Korea an issue for the Security Council at this time? SG: I think effective diplomatic action, I mean energetic diplomatic action is underway and I hope they will help resolve the conflict. I think the Atomic Agency [IAEA] has indicated we should give diplomacy a chance, and there is quite a lot of effort going on at the moment and I'm hopeful it will work...

17 March

SG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I've just come out of a [Security] Council meeting where we discussed the situation in Iraq. Obviously the members of the Council who had hoped for a long time that it ought to be possible to disarm Iraq peacefully and had hoped to be able to come up with a common position, are today disappointed and frustrated and are worried that they were not able to muster the collective will to find a common basis to move ahead. And obviously, we seem to be at the end of the road here. Yesterday UNMOVIC, the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region....

New York, 20 March 2003 - Statement by the Secretary-General on Iraq


Today, despite the best efforts of the international community and the United Nations, war has come to Iraq for the third time in a quarter of a century.
Perhaps if we had persevered a little longer, Iraq could yet have been disarmed peacefully, or - if not - the world could have taken action to solve this problem by a collective decision, endowing it with greater legitimacy, and therefore commanding wider support, than is now the case.
But let us not dwell on the divisions of the past. Let us confront the realities of the present, however harsh, and look for ways to forge stronger unity in the future. My thoughts today are with the Iraqi people, who face yet another ordeal. I hope that all parties will scrupulously observe the requirements of international humanitarian law, and will do everything in their power to shield the civilian population from the grim consequences of war. The United Nations, for its part, will do whatever it can to bring them assistance and support.

New York, 1 April 2003 - Press encounter by the Secretary-General upon arrival at Headquarters


SG: Good morning.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, this was a war that many people questioned the legitimacy [of] it out of the gate. To this date no weapons of mass destruction have been found. What do you think it does even more so to the legitimacy of this action?
SG: As I have indicated, the work of the inspectors has merely been suspended. If and when they can resume their work they should go back to Iraq. If anything were to be found, they should go back to test it. I hope the time will come when they will be able to do that. As to your question, whether the fact that they haven't found weapons of mass destruction diminishes the impact or the legitimacy of the war, you should know that, yes the issue before the [Security] Council was disarmament, but the Council had not endorsed this war...



http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/sg_iraq_2003.htm

 

[earth_as_one]

Iraq has been in a civil war pretty much since the rioting, looting, rape and murder which followed the post invasion lawlessness.

Iraq: Insecurity and lawlessness

“No one is safe.” “We need security, not food.” The people who met Amnesty International’s delegates in Basra in April 2003 were concerned above all about insecurity and violence.

They were living in a city ravaged by looting and lawlessness. A city where looting continued, even though anything of any worth had already been stolen. A city where women and girls were too frightened to go out alone, for fear of violence, gun crime and revenge killings.

Disorder, fear and insecurity were prevalent in many parts of Iraq. The previous government’s authority had been removed, but the occupying US and UK forces failed to provide the protection and assistance they owed to the Iraqi people. The lack of preparedness and deployment of resources meant there was a failure to bring the lawlessness under control...

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_5-eng

Iraq met the definition for civil war back then. Iraq civil war definitions are more about semantics than pragmatics.

 

[cortex]

How many times was it said, by many people, before the invasion of Iraq, that knocking out Saddam's government would create a political vacuum and civil war would be the result? Bush and Rummy knew better. Didn't they?

I fear its much more sinister than most people believe. It is entirely possible this had nothing to do with anything except crushing a type of nationalism that could have potentiallly been a model for developing countries in the region--ie a relatively secular strong arab state that would act in its own interests and not neccessarily in those of the British and americans. Prior to gulf war 1, Iraq was on the verge on achieving first world levels of economic prosperity. This intervention could not have had anything to do with imposing democrasy----ie Saudi is a torture chamber--and yet will not only not be invaded by the the Uk/Us axis but are actually allies.

No, the fact is that what we are seeing in this daily carnage from iraq--the killing and suffering and collapse of a nation is also more or less the objective.
As a wonderfull side effect---it increases the paranoia of many nation leaders--spurring ever more military expenditures---much of which will benefit the US/UK etc. And there is the mythological -racist objective that runs as deep as it is silent----that in simple terms----the WASPs ---rule you little people and dont you forget it ---

It is commonly believed that the US was defeated in the Vietnameese war---
perhaps the hobbling of a potential regional power---with merely socialist and not ---"communist" objective---the nipping in the bud---the pure exportation of chaos---was exactly the objective.

We should learn from these mistakes---we often hear.

But the fact is the american government is not stupid----but rather evil--if there is such a thing---

I dont believe that most people are aware of how they are merely "cells" in a much larger organism ---thats very ill.

On the other hand there is nothing uniquely depraved about the US?Uk axis---they are merely the leading edge of this ugly part of human nature.