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 (36191)	8/6/2002 9:28:22 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, I think these legalisms are largely irrelevant. The need for Congressional approval is completely political in the best sense of the word. Bush needs Congress in the same bunker with him when things go wrong. And the country needs to feel that the processes by which the administration decided to attack were legitimate. By legitimate, here I mean a sense that nothing was put over on the citizenry. That will take much more debate than has yet occurred.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36191)	8/6/2002 9:38:37 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "It was a UN resolution, but one which the US (probably as ostensible head of coalition forces) is in charge of implementing." I think it was this one: Resolution 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting on April 3, 1991 ... 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990); 34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. tufts.edu But since it's a UN security council "thing", the US is not in a legal position to take advantage of it unilaterally. -- Carl