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: Ilaine who wrote (36669)	8/9/2002 11:33:17 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

I don't think Bush will go to Iraq without a Congressional resolution. Saddam's continuing attempts to obtain WMD in that part of the world is all the justification we need to intervene.

To: Ilaine who wrote (36669)	8/9/2002 11:57:05 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yeah, but the deal he made wasn't with us, it was with the UN. So we don't really have standing to complain if the UN doesn't want to. I didn't realize that Desert Shield/Storm was a "UN operation".. Did I miss something there?? Last I heard, it was a coalition of nations, led by the US, and SUPPORTED (and authorized) by UN resolutions through UNSC resolution 678 to use whatever means necessary, in coordination with the Kuwaiti government to remove Iraqi forces. But our folks were not under UN control as they were in Korea. fas.org And Saddam has not upheld his end of the armistice agreement, nor UNSC resolution 686: fas.org And you'll note in UNSC resolution 686, that it directly stated that paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 remains in effect: 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; Now I don't know what more authority is required than that vis-a-vis international law. Has the UN revoked UNSC Resolution 686?? Not to my knowledge. Nor have I seen the UN ponying up any money to reimburse the US for having continued to try and enforce Resolution 686 and 678. Hawk