Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: GST who wrote (112034)	8/20/2003 1:02:59 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

The difference would be that a UN mission would be legitimate -- something the US on its own lacks. How so?.. They bombed the UN headquarters in Baghdad.. Obviously who ever did that does not feel the UN is "legitimate", so there goes that theory.. Whether this had been a UN authorized invasion, or member states acting under binding UNSC resolutions, it doesn't matter... Because THE UN HAS NEVER PREVIOUSLY SANCTIONED REGIME CHANGE. In fact, the UN has never DIRECTLY authorized the use of force to enforce it's binding resolutions. The most they have ever done is authorize "all necessary means" to carry them out.. language hardly providing an imperative to use force. I believe Thomas Freidman may be on to something.. If Iraqis perceive these attacks deriving from neighboring Arab states, it could unite many of them behind the coalitions forces, as they recognize that their "brothers" have little interest in seeing them prosper, let alone bring their oil production back on line. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next