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: maceng2 who wrote (48369)	10/1/2002 12:38:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

To begin with, enforcement of UN resolutions -- at least in theory -- should not be selective. There are a number of countries in the world that have been living quite comfortably for decades in gross violation of various UN resolutions. India and Israel come to mind. But the writer fails to note that neither India, nor Israel have been sanctioned under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, normally referred to as "binding resolutions" that must be complied with on pain of military force. However, the UNSC resolutions specific to Iraq and the Gulf War WERE issued under Chapter VII. Here's a current list of nations which have had Chapter VII resolutions applied against them: un.org Hawk

To: maceng2 who wrote (48369)	10/1/2002 7:20:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush administration would be on less shaky ground if it argued straightforwardly for regime change in Iraq, rather than hiding behind the pretence of enforcing UN resolutions. Oh, that's cute. And what did everyone say when Bush did argue for regime change? Omigosh, you can't act unilaterally, you must go through the UN. Using the UN as a cover to pursue legally controversial objectives that suit the Bush administration's political purposes would severely compromise the UN and undermine its moral authority to make further decisions on the use of force. The UN has moral authority? Surely no one believes this except as a polite political hypocrisy. And if hypocrisy can stretch far enough to grant the UN moral authority, Bush will be unable to compromise it. Going to the UN with one set of objectives and then substituting it for another would also do immeasurable damage to U.S. credibility in the world. The world is quite smart enough to understand the real objectives and the real message. US credibility should be considerably enhanced, I would say.