Illegal to Fight Back???

Iraq war illegal, says Annan
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."
...
The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.

He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.

Truthfully, this is bad timing. Why bring this up yet again at this time? Why not sooner? If he stood by this rhetoric, then he could have continued in it the whole time. That way it does not appear as a "surprise" right before elections.

HOWEVER, in all honesty, we were not the only ones to strike Iraq. We were not the only ones who believed there was a good cause for striking back at those areas where these terrorists were hiding out. Britain joined us. Australia is there. What do these countries have to say about their involvement?

A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".

Good.

Mr. Annan's voice does not represent the voice of everyone. He may be the Secretary-General in the UN, but he is not representative of every single member state. Each state had their own thoughts & feelings about what should be done (from Previous Blog):

"...terrorism must be combated by all possible means." —French President Jacques Chirac

"...an offense against the freedom and rights of all civilized nations." —Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien

"It is a brazen challenge to the whole humanity, at least to civilized humanity. And what happened today is added proof of the relevance of the Russian proposal to pool the efforts of the international community in the struggle against terrorism, that plague of the 21st century."—Russian President Valdimir Putin

We even asked the UN to help. They rejected our request. We were supposed to sit there and bleed? While the sly, sinister bully with the just-play-dumb appearance was out there punching someone here and there, but retracting their fists quick enough that nobody could be sure it was really them? Then in a sneering boast, proclaim "I DID IT! I DID IT!" all the while laughing at us because...we just let him get away with it... over and over and over.

"We are creating a coalition to go after terrorism. We are asking the United Nations and every other organization you can think of...to join us once and for all in a great coalition to conduct a campaign against terrorists who are conducting war against civilized people." —Colin Powell, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, September 13, 2001

Come on. Mr. Annan: DUDE, WAKE UP!

I understand that the UN charter calls "for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..."

But seriously! There was already a breach of peace involved. More than a hundred times. And this little sentence in Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter sounds like a merry-go-round. There needs to be an adendum (am I missing that somewhere? Someone point it out to me if you find it) where the UN charter allows for this certain exception:

***If the case involves a group of people that has continuously harrassed, assaulted, coerced, intimidated, and tried to dominate others through violent means and threatening expressions, then it is deemed impossible to establish any kind of peace with such an unstable mentality - where peace was attempted in times before - and thus, we acknowledge that a peaceful means cannot bring about the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace caused by this group."***

This sentence in the UN charter is reasonable FOR ALL OTHER REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES...

(was that clear enough for everyone to read? let me know in the back there)

but not in this case.

We are dealing with a plague (as Vladimir Putin put it so eloquently). A virus (as I stated before).

There should be an exception. This is not a usual war. This breach of peace goes way beyond the boundaries of the norm. We are not fighting against flesh and blood alone. Not by their standards. Not by their terms. They made that clear when they signed the fatwah.