Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36102)	8/6/2002 12:53:59 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

I would say no because the Persian Gulf Resolution which authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991 was couched as defense of Kuwait. Which, by the way, is why Bush I did not go after Saddam then, in my opinion. uiowa.edu Now, Andrew Jackson would have done it, and the Jacksonians would have applauded him, but it still would have been in violation of the War Powers Resolution as I read it. Andrew Jackson wouldn't have cared, he did what he wanted and the people loved him for it. Actually I have not read all the UN Resolutions (Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677 and 678) maybe there is something in those that could be massaged into still giving the Commander in Chief the right to use force against Iraq.