Foreign Policy Discussion Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: zonder who wrote (4951)	3/4/2003 8:21:13 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) of 15987

..the change in US foreign policy over the course of the past year, I think with the passage of time, you should probably say year and half now. There has definitely been a change in American policy towards terrorism and the ME in general since 9/11. US led by example, and was the benevolent giant who was consistent in its principles. Now there is a lot of bullying, little respect for international treaties, and progressively increasing aggressiveness. You know the thing is that in the Iraq situation, we are pushing for consistency in principles. The same principles we've been pushing for since end of the Gulf War. The disarming of Saddam or the resort to "serious consequences" i.e. war, is fully in line with numerous UN resolutions, including UNSC resolution 1441. 1441 was approved within the past year unanimously. It said this was Iraq's last chance to end its material breach of international resolutions or face "serious consequences". As Powell said to the UNSC after France declared it would veto any resolution to use force, everyone who signed that resolution knew what it meant. My understanding is that there is a reason why they are opposing the US initiative for war, and it is not "spite". The US initiative for war. What did the serious consequences UN resolution 1441 threatened mean? More of the same games that have been played with Iraq for 12 years? What did a final opportunity to comply mean in UN resolution 1441? Powell negotiated 1441 with the UNSC members. He said they all understood what it meant. I don't think he's lying. So how is it that enforcement of a clearly understood UN resolution has now become a "US initiative" for war? Can you explain why Powell's understanding of 1441 is wrong?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next