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.
Politics : Moderate Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (4467)11/13/2003 5:44:10 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) of 20773
 
Iraq signed the "accord" with the UN as the counterparty. Not the US.

Indeed... And the UN, as a counterparty, declared Iraq in material breach of those cease fire accords through UNSC 1441, providing them 90 days to come into compliance or face serious consequences.

The US and UK, as permanent members of the UN, enforced UNSC 1441, after those 90 days passed without full compliance being realized.

That means the only party who could decide on any hostilities as a countermeasure was the UN. Not the US.

Zonder dear... please provide and example of where the UN has ever "directly decided" that hostilities against another state were in order?? Any old example where the UN directly told its members to use military force. (good luck!)

And then tell us why they would take such an unprecedented course of action merely to enforce a UNSC that already has the authority of "all necessary means" backing it?

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News