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: Neocon who wrote (118174)	10/31/2003 12:30:50 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) of 281500

However, I do think it is fair to note that the consequence of the resolution was known and intended, i.e. Bush would use force to repel Iraq from Kuwait and the Saudi border. No disagreement from me on that point. It's the same thing that occurred as UNSC 1441 was passed JUST AFTER Bush managed to convince Congress to approve his authorization to use force against Iraq should they remain in material breach. Which is why I find this entire argument about the US not having UN authority to invade Iraq ludicrous. We had JUST as much authority as we had for Desert Storm. In fact, UNSC 1441 was in support of the cease fire agreement that temporarily terminated Desert Storm. The goal of 660 was to restore peace and regional stability, not to just evict Iraq from Kuwait. Freeing Kuwait was only PART of the mission. The rest of it was to end Saddam's terrorizing of the region. UNSC 1441 was in direct support of 660.. Regardless of how some people choose to twist or ignore it's meaning. And UNSC 1441 held the same level of authority as 660, meaning that resumption of hostilities between the coalition and Iraq was a valid method of implementing 1441. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next