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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Garden Rose who wrote (214748)1/25/2007 3:23:29 PM
From: mistermj  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
You are mistaken Garden Rose...it goes back to the first Iraq war, Desert Storm, and was bound by UN resolutions.

UNSC 687, which was the UNSC sponsored CEASE-FIRE derived from UNSC 678, and which authorized Desert Storm.

Desert Storm was authorized by the UNSC via it's binding resolutions.

The cease-fire was specified in UNSC 687, which obligated Saddam to disarm.

And failure to do so would result in a MATERIAL BREACH of the cease-fire agreement.

UNSC 1441 UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AND AFFIRMED by the UNSC, that Saddam was in MATERIAL BREACH of the cease-fire obligations.

Once the cease-fire agreement is in material breach, legally the situation defaults back to where it was under UNSC 678.

Bush did not have to go back to the UNSC for another resolution, or 1441. He had the authority mandated by the Charter to enforce the terms of UNSC 678 after the material breach
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