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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (148993)	10/20/2002 3:09:39 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Yes, you posted the same short, out of context excerpt at least three times, and nowhere in that excerpt did it say anything remotely resembling an "explicit prohibition" against "invasion." Here's the first of the three: You are such a lazy son-of-a-bitch. Resolution 686 "Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and Kuwait......" ALL of the Security Council Resolutions pertaining to Iraq deal strictly with the Iraq-Kuwaiti issue and its aftermath. No resolution ever authorized any Member State to invade Iraq in pursuit of regime change. EVERYBODY involved knows this and knows it clearly. Your ignorance is appalling. Why didn't Bush Sr. go after Saddam in 91? Because he couldn't do it even if he wanted to do it... My response to your claim that an invasion would have been illegal under "internaitonal law," a "war crime" as you so dramatically put it later, was 1) that the Gulf War was a war of Kuwaiti self-defense, 2) that every nation has a right to self-defense, 3) that this right includes invading the aggressor nation if necessary to eliminate its ability to pose an offensive threat, 4) that such self-defending nation is entitled to seek military help from allies, and finally, 5) that the UN has no right to prohibit any nation from so defending itself. That last point is particularly important because it is the UN charter itself that affirms nations' right of self-defense, it is exactly that right which would have been violated had the UN actually prohibited an invasion of Iraq in 1990-91, and it is the exercise of that right that you claim would have constituted a war crime. Bill responded to your claim as well by adding some context to your out of context quote: 686 also heaped obligations on Iraq if they wanted hostilities to end: "...Underlining the importance of Iraq taking the necessary measures which would permit a definitive end to the hostilities, ...noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating under paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of the resolution,... 1. Affirms that all twelve resolutions noted above continue to have full force and effect; 2. Demands that Iraq implement its acceptance of all twelve resolutions noted above and in particular that Iraq: ..." This resolution clearly places conditions on Iraq that it must meet in order to regain its "territorial integrity" and clearly acknowledges legal allied military presence in Iraq. If you want to nit-pick over the meaning of "invasion," then fine - we were there but not for the purpose of "conquest or plunder" as Webster's requires. But then by that definition, marching on to Baghdad with a million men to depose Saddam and disable his army would not have constituted an invasion either. BTW, 678, in case you're wondering, explicitly authorized Kuwait and co-operating Member States "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." 660 condemned "the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait" and demanded that Iraq immediately and unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait and cease hostilities. So, if you would look at this rationally, you would see that an "invasion," as you used the term in describing any further incursion by allied military forces into Iraq during the Gulf War, was not only NOT prohibited, but was actually authorized if necessary to enforce the resolutions.