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 (122520)	12/30/2003 10:13:10 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) of 281500

At no time did the UN Security Council agree to any resolution authorizing the US to invade Iraq -- much less to depose Saddam and set up a US-run puppet government. And the UN didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq in 1991 either.. In fact, the UN has NEVER authorized the use of military force to carry out its resolutions.. If you don't believe, take a look at UNSC 678 that was the basis for launching Desert Storm.. Show me even one phrase in that resolution that uses language specifically authorizing the use of force to eject Iraq from Kuwait.. You can't do it... All the UN did was lift prohibitions against using military, by stating that "all necessary means" were authorized to restore peace and regional stability.. Now obviously you're not accustomed to "legalese", given your demonstrated difficulty with "Dick and Jane" books, but we grown ups recognize that if the UN did not prohibit the use of military force, then that resolution could legally be authorized as permission to use military force, if necessary. And UNSC 678 was cited once again as a precedent document for UNSC 1441, which declared Iraq in "material breach" of its cease fire obligations. Remain in material breach of the cease fire and that accord/contract becomes worthless. Once one party to any contractual agreement fails to fulfill their obligations, the other party has the right to declare the contract null and void.. In the case of 1441, when that resolution was violated, UNSC 678 immediately came back into effect, especially since it was one of the primary precedents authorizing the language in 1441.. I'm right on this GST.. The fact that no one out here has ever properly shown an ability to dispute the legal logic behind my argument is indicative of this.. All you have to do is accept it... Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next