Calgary Japan Imports

culture and tradition of the world ...
.. robbed and burned by troops of jackals

even those who consider themselves "right" and still considers culture, history and tradition as values \u200b\u200bto defend .. What evidence before the collapse of Baghdad?


In this photo you can appreciate the skills '(and the voracity') delle valorose truppe statunitensi a lavoro in Iraq...

Should I Upgrade My Amd 3700

come condannare i crimini di guerra commessi da chi non riconosce la giurisdizione di alcuna corte fuorchè la propria?



ricordiamo a chi non lo sapesse che gli usa non riconoscono la giurisdizione della corte penale internazionale

---

Il CJP (comitato per la protezione dei giornalisti) ha inviato una lettera formale all'onorabile Donald Rumsfeld accusando le forze armate americane di aver ripetutamente violato la convenzione di Ginevra , nella sola giornata di oggi.



In un solo giorno sono stati capaci di bombardare l'albergo dove alloggiavano i giornalisti stranieri, uccidendo un cameraman Taras Protsyuk della Reuters e José Couso di Telecinco .



Nello stesso giorno, le forze armate americane hanno deliberatamente bombardato con missili la sede della tv Qatariota Al Jazeera , uccidedo il cameraman Taraq Ayyoub .



Gli Stati Uniti hanno l'obbligo internazionale di non uccidere i giornalisti.



In particolare, l'articolo 79 del Protocollo Addizionale della Convenzione di Ginevra sostiene che "i giornalisti coinvolti in pericolose missioni professionali in areas of armed conflict must be considered civilians, without prejudice against war correspondents - embedded - accredited to the armed forces. "

The Committee expressed skepticism to the view ( denied by all the journalists present in the Palestine Hotel ) that the American tank that caused the massacre had been previously subject to enemy fire (sniper) from the roof.

Even then, the evidence shows that the response the American tanks would still have been wholly disproportionate, even if they were spotted by snipers firing from the roofs of both buildings of Al Jazeera and Palestine Hotel.

Breville Bb300 Breadmaker

Dottrina Bush



"Esporteremo morte e violenza ai quattro angoli della terra per la difesa della nostra grande nazione." George W. Bush - dichiarazione presa da "Bush at War" di Bob Woodward, a sua volta citato da William Pfaff, International Herald Tribune .

Cute Snowboarding Hairstyles

AI BENEVOLENTI GUERRAFONDAI E TUTTI I LUNGIMIRANTI SOSTENITORI DI UNA FACILE GUERRA LAMPO



vorremmo farli andare in Irak in questo momento e mostrar loro il caos, la confusione, la morte, il sangue, le macerie e tra tutto questo la tanto illusoria vittoria della loro tanto osannata coalizione.


A sentence of Carl von Clausewitz serve their lesson:

"philanthropists may easily imagine that there is a clever way to disarm and overpower an army without causing a pool of blood ... this is a mistake that must be eradicated . in dangerous things as war, errors generated by a spirit of benevolence are the worst. "

Illegal To Own Bulletproof

RIGHTS AND PENALTIES

the face of those who have broken the laws of international law, in front of the impotence of international organizations and their failure to prevent a war of unjustified aggression, against those who has ignored any code of laws of war and fired against diplomatic convoys, one certainty remains.

rules and the order will remain. The institutions are supposed to resist and resist. The law must be defended and related institutions should do everything to preserve, present and future.

Just like when a burglar enters someone's home and stealing, the law of the state, even if broken, is still valid and strong. So in the face of those who have made a mockery of international law and institutions, we must reiterate that these laws and these institutions exist and must be respected, protected and strengthened. A reformed UN

some say.

No doubt a stronger UN, able to stop the coming massacres and disturbances of order and international law: this is the new challenge.

France, Germany, Europe and all the nations of the world will have to take note.

Pokemon Hacks For Vba

anti-American TO ANYONE

First I have never given dell'antiamericano a Question, because I consider it one of the charges plus any of these times. And also because I'm not pro-American, and I'm against this war.
Then: I can not escape at all that the United Nations to decide whether a state violates the resolutions, in fact-and I repeat it again!-Is that the UN has decided that Saddam had violated the resolution of disarmament. And because I care international legality, I believe that the UN, in my opinion shaky, should be reformed. And apart from the thesis question that there would be no freedom in the U.S. (it is true that, after September 11, there are serious violations, but not much more serious than other democratic countries, but unfortunately there are more), for the rest I fully agree with him. I know all the violations listed on the application, the shameful events of Guantanamo etc. etc., and yet I read Chomsky. Only thing is that I do not consider the U.S. the only culprits.
And I have some doubt that the UN inspectors, without entering Iraq from Saddam only because of American pressure, would be able to disarm the dictator. Do not forget Saddam for twelve years he has taken the game of checkers. Another interesting case was that of exile, but I talk about maybe some other time.


Episcopus But, the main author of this blog, what happened? Why never intervenes?

How Many Hd Movies Will Fit On 160gb Apple Tv?

This America and Democracy, national and international

It 's true that the biggest protest movements such as the No-Global are born in the USA. Rocco asks why.
It 'easy to understand: perhaps because it is in the USA were born certain policies aimed at the commercialization of everyday life and elimination of security for those who work, the privatization of social services, the creation of the GATS and the like. Then came the protest in the U.S. just because the U.S. was born the phenomenon of globalization.

and how they are treated this context we should discuss, as the sun during recent protests in San Francisco have been arrested 1,400 people .. in Washington do not talk about ... people arrested for demonstrating peacefully in front of the white house ... but Genoa G8: Americans surpass us in this.

E 'this is democracy? In a country where Al Jazeera is not given access to the New York Stock Exchange? Where the only Iraqi journalist was arrested on suspicion of espionage? Where Fox TV news of huge military successes and then deny them 5 or 10 minutes later?

Who are these defenders of human rights? The same not guaranteeing the rights of Guantanamo prisoners to the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. The same people who complained of American POWs shown on Iraqi television by the same ones that were then appealed to the Geneva Convention that they have never met, a few days before they had spread all over the world images of Iraqi prisoners who knelt on the ground in front of a Marine for mercy. The same that General Michael Jackson, commander of British forces in Iraq has criticized the methods by which U.S. troops treat Iraqi civilians, why ruin the British efforts to "conquer" the hearts of the people.

are the ones who distribute the food aid that is on the border between Kuwait and Iraq, food aid and not from the USA, but blocked by the U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and transporting stocks regularly paid by the Government of 'Iraq under the oil-for-food program.

But the most important thing that escapes Rocco (but sorry, you probably did not do our own studies on law and international organizations) are not the United States is deciding whether a country is not respecting the UN resolutions. Only the United Nations ed in particolare il Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU che solamente può decidere se uno stato sta o non sta violando le risoluzioni. E' stato il Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU a riportare gli ispettori in Iraq.



E tutto il consiglio di sicurezza (ad eccezione di USA, UK, Bulgaria e Spagna) si era espresso positivamente sugli esiti delle ispezioni che stavano portando a risultati decisivi.



Ovviamente la pressione di un intervento militare anglo-americano ha spinto Saddam ad una maggiore co-operazione con gli ispettori.

Ma proprio qui sta l'errore madornale di Bush ed il suo mancato successo politico: la pressione militare avrebbe potuto portare a

risultati ben maggiori ed ad un disarmo totale, col sostegno di tutta la comunità internazionale e senza aver sparato un colpo.



Invece questa amministrazione ha usato gli ispettori come un diversivo tattico per dare il tempo alle forze armate angloamericane di costruire un arsenale d'attacco in Kuwait, per altro non sufficiente per ottenere i risultati che si aspettavano: prendere Baghdad in un paio di giorni con tanti baci e abbracci degli sciti del Sud.



Ma quale liberazione? Come mai gli sciti non gioiscono e non accolgono i liberatori a braccia aperte? Come mai i civili martoriati dai bombardamenti, quando prendono il cibo e i medicinali dalle mani degli angloamericani, due secondi dopo inneggiano a Saddam facendo loro segni di disprezzo?



Come mai gli americani non sono riusciti a prendere nemmeno una città irakena, che persino Umm Qasr non è sicura e non è mai stata completamente conquistata in quanto l'unico porto preso dagli angloamericani è quello nuovo, ben distante dal centro abitato.



Infine, ritenere giustificabile.. o comprensibile.. la rottura della legalità internazionale come un colpo di stato in un paese libero e democratico, vuol dire non dare valore alla legalità, alla giustizia, alla democrazia e soprattutto alla libertà di un popolo e il proprio autogoverno. Persino l'opposizione Irakena in esilio si è sempre espressa in favore si del rovesciamento di Saddam, ma per opera del suo stesso popolo, non di un invasore.



Per that even the Kurds and the Shiites of the PUK, major allies of the Anglo-American military and only real winners of this war, have made it clear that they will accept only a military and logistical aid from the Americans, but want to manage themselves on their own country, together with the other members of the Iraqi National Congress.

Finally, as far as I can endure the law and international justice, I hope that this conflict will end as soon as possible, especially to stop the carnage and humanitarian catastrophe.

anti-American and even I do not think we need more support than ever in this world strong and respectable country that can guarantee justice internationally, and that the U.S. has lost an opportunity to show themselves capable of handling a crisis of this magnitude.
miles
What if the Iraqis would not give up and if the management of Iraq as soon as it was entrusted to the UN and the Iraqis themselves as soon as possible, thus restoring credibility and respectability to international organizations and the United States itself.

Many escapes one thing: if this war would turn into another Viet Nam and if were to be extended indefinitely, we would have a series of fearsome effects:

1. the development of a wider regional crisis See also involved Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia after
2. One race non-conventional weapons by all countries that believe they are in some way in the U.S. expansionist policies or
3. lifting of Western public opinion and especially Arab and further development of terrorism on an international basis
4. de-legitimization of the political role of the U.S., NATO and the UN.

So un-American to whom?

anti-American and who has dragged America into the quagmire of an illegal war against a UN member state.
anti-American and who has forced his country to trudge into the desert and the U.S. military put the sedan in front of the world.
anti-American and who, before the world whole, has made his army responsible for a massacre of civilians daily.

The world order is also based on the credibility legal, military and political superpower of this, the supposed guarantor of international institutions and law.
Was it really necessary to put at risk?

Tiffany Granathnightcalls

FURTHER DETAILS


I do not understand why we're all good to remember the acts of terrorism in America, which remains a democracy (the major protest movements like the anti-globalization, which I assume really like upon request, are born in the U.S.), and postponed the other hand on those made by dictatorial regimes, always with the saint in the UN budget.

guess that application was also opposed intervention in Kosovo because the UN had no sponsor, and yet in Kosovo took place among the most terrible genocide of the last thirty years (and not "one of the many crimes that take place in world ", as some pacifists say, though, and always to justify their guilty neutrality), that if we want to be objective, requires much more urgent action than the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait. Only in the latter had the approval of the United Nations to intervene in Kosovo, no. If he had listened to the UN, we would probably now in Yugoslavia un altro olocausto.

Vorrei pregare Domanda di leggere meglio quello che ho ribadito numero n di volte (ormai non le conto più): l'ONU, che Domanda ama tanto, ha ordinato a Saddam Husseim il disarmo. L'ONU, non gli USA! Saddam ha violato la risoluzione delle Nazioni Unite, è andato contro la legalità internazionale, come quando invase il Kuwait. Saddam aveva perso la guerra dell'ONU, e doveva disarmare come aveva detto l'ONU.

Per quanto riguarda il tuo esempio: Giustificare l'intervento armato degli USA a causa della presunta inefficenza delle Nazioni Unite sarebbe come giustificare un colpo di stato in Italia a causa della presunta inefficienza di Ciampi e del Parlamento ... Frankly I think an own goal: I do not condone anything, if anything, individual responsibility, and believe me, it seems understandable to any town in the case of a coup in a country with a president and a parliament without powers.

Harman Kardon Dvd Player Cant Hear Talking

WHAT MAKES AN ILLEGAL WAR?

Declare a "preventive" war is absurd and illegal outside of any conception of law intenazionale.
There is even a law school that admits the concept.
The United Nations and the U.S. are responsible for international order.
So if the UN does not slavishly what is commanded by Washington, not to say that the UN has failed, means that Washington has failed in his attempts to influence the Security Council. (Deo gratias and that even countries such as Guinea the Cameroon and Angola not buy are made from dollar diplomacy)

justify armed intervention in the U.S. because of alleged inefficiency of the United Nations would be like justify a coup in Italy because of the alleged inefficiency of Ciampi and Parliament.

these institutions are and must be respected.
The Republican administrations of the United States have always mocked the UN and its resolutions and the U.S. currently are the only country in the world to be condemned by the World Court for acts of international terrorism and has vetoed the resolution of the Security Council urged Member States to observe international law.

Noam Chomsky, renowned U.S. professor writes:

Reagan-US war against Nicaragua. E 'incontrovertible because there are a number of major international dictates OMPETENT: the International Court of Justice, the World Court, the UN Security Council. This is a case which admits of no dispute, at least among those who have a minimum account for the international law, human rights, justice etc..
Il caso del Nicaragua è specialmente rilevante, non solo per il suo carattere incontrovertibile, ma perché offre un precedente su come uno Stato che rispetta la legge risponderebbe ( di fatto, su come rispose ) di fronte a un caso di terrorismo internazionale che non ammette discussione. Un caso di terrorismo che, per certo, fu più estremo degli avvenimenti dell'11 settembre. La guerra USA-Reagan contro il Nicaragua terminò con decine di migliaia di assassinati e il paese completamente rovinato, forse per sempre.

Il Nicaragua rispose, ma i nicaraguensi non risposero bombardando Washington. Risposero portando gli USA di fronte al Tribunale Mondiale in una causa in cui non ebbero difficoltà nel trovare tests. The World Court gave reason to Nicaragua , condemning what he called "illegal exercise of power" is synonymous with international terrorism. The Court demanded the U.S. end of the crimes and pay reparations (in Nicaragua). The North American , in response, rejected the ruling of the Court with absolute contempt and announced that no longer accept the jurisdiction of that court. The
Nicaragua then resorted to the UN Security Council , where he discussed a resolution where asked all States to respect international law. did not name names, but the whole world knew. The U.S. vetoed . Currently the U.S. is the only country in the world to be condemned by the World Court for acts of international terrorism and has vetoed the resolution of the Security Council urged Member States to observe international law . The
Nicaragua resorted then the UN General Assembly, where the veto does not technically exist, but where a vote is tantamount to degativo U.S. veto.
The General Assembly passed a similar resolution: only voted against U.S., Israel and El Salvador . The following year, he returned to Nicaragua the present case before the House Genarale UN . On this occasion the U.S. could rely on the support of Israel , so two votes opposed to respect for international law . At that point, Nicaragua had exhausted all legal remedies available and had come to the conclusion that these appeals do not work in a world dominated by force.

This is to explain not only the sad affair of Nicaragua, but the whole attitude of the Republican administrations against U.S. law and international law: absolute contempt.

What's The Handle On The Side Of My Fireplace?

DETAILS


Sometimes I've got to intervene I, too, otherwise application monopolizes the weblog! Seriously, I would like to clarify some things, the premise that no peace nor war-mongering. I know that question is right in the previous Gulf war, as had the endorsement of the 'UN, then I remember that thanks to the vision of the UN, in that war was prevented American troops to go all the way to oust Saddam Husseim: yes decided that Saddam should remain in place, however, was to disarm (the order of disarmament was also against Germany after the Second World War), then, it has been over a decade, and what happened? Saddam has not disarmed, then violated the UN resolution, and also until America is not threatened by force, has always thrown out the inspectors. As always, the UN is appointed as a beacon for international law, remember that Saddam is against the law for twelve years. The problem was therefore: how to make Saddam disarm, as he ordered the UN, and therefore respect international law? I would like to point out that the cunning dictator has accepted the inspectors only after pressing the U.S. and if we want to believe that the inspectors would have disarmed Saddam, if we are to believe this charade blessed by Saddam, crediamoci well. This is a real jack ass (which, I repeat again, lasting more than a decade) of international law. Poi, chiaramente, si può ritenere sbagliato per varie ragioni l'intervento militare americano (e io stesso lo ritengo un errore), ma dal punto di vista della legalità non è meno illegale della precedente guerra del golfo: Saddam, ripeto per l'ennesima volta, ha violato la risoluzione ONU che gli imponeva di disarmare, e gli Stati Uniti intervengono per obbligare Saddam al disarmo; intervengono, purtroppo, unilateralmente, ma questo è soprattutto per responsabilità dell'ONU, che dimostra ancora una volta la sua inefficienza: in realtà, e questa sarebbe la cosa più urgente da fare, l'ONU andrebbe radicalmente riformato, perché così com'è è solo un rosario sghangherato che ognuno espone a seconda della convenienza.