UN report: Preemptive strikes legitimate ...

September 2003.

The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was established by Secretary-General Annan last November. The Panel, which is to report to the Secretary General by 1 December 2004, is charged with examining how best collective action can respond to current and future threats to peace and security, broadly interpreted to include also economic and social challenges, such as poverty and under-development. On the basis of the Panel’s Report, Secretary-General Annan will make his own recommendations to the UN General Assembly.

The membership of the High-Level Panel was announced on 4 November 2003, and consists of:

• Anand Panyarachun (Chairman), former Prime Minister of Thailand

• Robert Badinter (France), Member of the French Senate and former Minister of Justice of France;

• Joao Clemente Baena Soares (Brazil), former Secretary-General of the Organization of American States;

• Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway), former Prime Minister of Norway and former Director-General of the World Health Organization;

• Mary Chinery-Hesse (Ghana), Vice-Chairman, National Development Planning Commission of Ghana and former Deputy Director-General, International Labour Organization;

• Gareth Evans (Australia), President of the International Crisis Group and former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia;

• David Hannay (United Kingdom), former Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations and United Kingdom Special Envoy to Cyprus;

• Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay), President of the Inter-American Development Bank;

• Amre Moussa (Egypt), Secretary-General of the League of Arab States;

• Satish Nambiar (India), former Lt. General in the Indian Army and Force Commander of UNPROFOR;

• Sadako Ogata (Japan), former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;

• Yevgenii Primakov (Russia), former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation;

• Qian Qichen (China), former Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China;

• Nafis Sadik (Pakistan), former Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund;

• Salim Ahmed Salim (United Republic of Tanzania), former Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity; and

• Brent Scowcroft (United States), former Lt. General in the United States Air Force and United States National Security Adviser.


http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/panel.asp

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
November 30 2004

A report by a high-level panel on reforming the United Nations says that preemptive military strikes for self-defence are legitimate, but that any final decision on such action rests with the Security Council, according to media reports.
The report, commissioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, also upholds the international community’s duty to intervene in any state where the government is unable or unwilling to protect its people, and offers two proposals for expanding the Security Council.


http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/nov-2004/29/index5.php

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Do you agree with the UN commission's conclusion that preemptive military strikes for self-defence approved by the Security Council are legitimate ?

I am just amused.

See last years agreement and joyous anouncements over an agreement with Iran to "cease all activities that may lead to the production of nuclear weapons."

Amused? Only because I can't cry.

This week the "mighty mites" of europe will 'again' sign the same agreement they signed last year that will "prevent the development of the bomb".

What am I missing here?

Seems like the europeans are celebrating the victory of hope over history.

What is different now? What makes these people more valid now than [they appeared to be] from the agreement of last year to "cease all enrichment of uranium"?

Just wondering. Search the Web. Seek. Find. Last year.

Then ask youself. "Are these Facists really wanting peace? Or are they wanting to distract the easy minded?"

Sorry folks. The world may well ignore it. But I'm holding you here on RHP to a vote. You now have one month to educate yourselves and then I will require you to vote:

"Allow Iran to have nukes, or attack and destroy that capability?"

Decide. That SVW vote is only a month away.

I only regret that I didn't have this vote circa 2001 concerning Iraq, when all of you were supporting the invasion. Well, most of you.

"Choose". The most feared verb in the liberal dictionary.

"Choose"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/04/world/main566463.shtml

Geez!

You don't suppose that a nation that has promised to "destroy the great satan, America" might want a weapon that fits the promise?

Never having a clue that if they do... they will just "glow in the dark" for a thousand years?

Not all of us are christians. Thank God. snark.

What has Iran done this year past to make any Euro jerk and fool believe that they really did quit building a bomb?

Speak up you saviours of civilization. What did they do that you are now going to defend them for the next thousand years.

You will, you know.

Do you know why?

Because you are mind wiped. Programmed. It will never occur to you that maybe these facists really are your enemies too.

Even though you saw it with your own eyes when they beheaded one of your own -- a woman who hated the US as much as you do.

Sorry. If you live only for hate, that is what you will reap. It is written.

"Even though you saw it with your own eyes when they beheaded one of your own -- a woman who hated the US as much as you do. "

Actually Abu al-Zaheer (or what ever the scum's name is) is Jordanian, not Iranian.

This aside, I believe that Iran is more of a threat to the West than Saddam ever was. Ever since tha Ayatollah Khomeni replaced the Shah of Iran, this has been true. Even now, when so called democracy is present in the religious dictatorship, all the candidates are "Chosen" or vetoed by the Muslim Clerics. Still this should suit Bush fans as it guarantees right wing religious fanatacists are in control! Oh, apart from the fact that they hate the West that is.

But I digress. The point is that when the alliance removed Saddam, they unleashed the very forces which he was subjugating and suppressing; Muslim religious fanatics! The irony is that they would have been much better of attacking Iran. After all, the West sold the tanks and chemical weapons with which Saddam killed thousands of Iranian soldiers. I can remember BBC1 news in the 1980s "CELEBRATING" the great victory of Saddam's army over the Iranian's using "Superior Western technology" despite being massively outnumbered. The Western governments even tried to secretly supply a supergun to Saddam in contravention of their own vetoes!!!!!!
Of course Bush's removal of Saddam had nothing to do with the war on terror. If you don't realise this, then you don't know much.

I would much rather we had sent a force to depose the nasty despotic regime in N. Korea who are also secretly developing nuclear capability and have even fired an empty warhead over Japan as a warning shot.
Unfortunately though, we are much more likely to go into Ukraine: they have lots of black, runny, combustible resources there!

Originally posted by howardgee
"Even though you saw it with your own eyes when they beheaded one of your own -- a woman who hated the US as much as you do. "

Actually Abu al-Zaheer (or what ever the scum's name is) is Jordanian, not Iranian.

This aside, I believe that Iran is more of a threat to the West than Saddam ever was. Ever since tha Ayatollah Khomeni replaced the Shah ...[text shortened]... ch more likely to go into Ukraine: they have lots of black, runny, combustible resources there!

"It is no different than Iraq as to Nukes and WMD.":

Except that Iraq did not have any!

LOL.

Originally posted by howardgee
"It is no different than Iraq as to Nukes and WMD.":

Except that Iraq did not have any!

LOL.

What would you know about choice?

You just do what ever the bible tells you to do!

Originally posted by howardgee
What would you know about choice?

You just do what ever the bible tells you to do!

Originally posted by ivanhoe
September 2003.

The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was established by Secretary-General Annan last November. The Panel, which is to report to the Secretary General by 1 December 2004, is charged with examining how best collective action can respond to current and future threats to peace and security, broadly interpreted to include also ...[text shortened]... t preemptive military strikes for self-defence approved by the Security Council are legitimate ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
September 2003.

The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was established by Secretary-General Annan last November. The Panel, which is to report to the Secretary General by 1 December 2004, is charged with examining how best collective action can respond to current and future threats to peace and security, broadly interpreted to include also ...[text shortened]... t preemptive military strikes for self-defence approved by the Security Council are legitimate ?