SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)
AMZN 232.08-0.2%Dec 29 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Oeconomicus who wrote (149070)10/22/2002 9:52:19 AM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (1) of 164684
 
<<Vic, what the coalition decided to do or not to do is not the issue here. The issue was GST's assertion that it would have been illegal to "finish the job" because the UN prohibited it and that the US or anyone else needs UN approval to take any military action against another country. The UN did no such thing and if "finishing the job" was necessary to defend Kuwait and ensure peace in the region, it was not only perfectly legal under long-established principles of international law, but was also explicitly authorized by the UN.>>

I don't recall the UN's exact stance. I do clearly recall the International Coalition limiting the mission to getting Iraq out of Kuwait. So it wasn't 'our' (the US) decision to make anyway, it was the coalition's and it had been made. So the UN's stance was pretty much moot.

I just wish more people in the US would recall these facts.

<<The answer is that it didn't appear to be necessary then, but knowing then what we know now, it might have appeared differently and the choice might have been different. >>

right, at the time I think there was some thought that Saddam was much weaker internally at the end of the war and would be vulnerable to overthrow from within Iraq.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext