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: richardbt who wrote (55131)	10/28/2002 10:07:47 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the correction Richard.. It was a typo on my part.. You're correct Chapter VII is the binding resolution section of the UN charter.. I brought up the difference between Chapter VI and VII some weeks ago when people were wondering why the US doesn't spend as much effort enforcing UN resolutions related to Israel.. Actually it probably is. The overriding principle of the UN Charter is the preservation of international peace and security. We'll have to agree to disagree Richard... I opine that it is ridiculous when nations go the efforts (led by the US) to develop an international "governing body" with only the ability to make "laws" and no ability to enforce them.. The UNSC went so far as to issue a number of binding resolutions against Iraq in 1990-91 which Iraq was required to abide by. But it has been plainly obvious that the majority of the UN members seem unwilling to enforce those resolutions, content with having the US expend the treasure and blood necessary to "contain" Saddam.. On a legal principle, I say that the US has at least the right of "citizen's arrest" with regard to Iraq. But more appropriate is that the UN relies upon a "volunteer police force" from each of its members. But the UN has no ability to compel enforcement... Only it's membership does.. And if you haven't noticed, membership in the UNSC recently included Syria, a Baathist state rivally Saddam own regime for brutality.... Thus, I have a feeling that since 1991, the judge and jury has been rigged and the criminals are now making the laws and providing selective enforcement. I think Bush is right with regard to putting the UN on the spot. I certainly don't see the efficacy of an international body that won't enforce it's own "laws"... The criminal indictment, warrants, conviction, and terms of probation have been issued against Saddam... That's already happened.. But he's a parole violator. We put him on parole and he hasn't seen his parole officer since 1996.. And everyone's so afraid that enforcing the law will stir up the "natives", and muck up people's economic interests so they want enforce the parole... Thus, the US is about to become the bounty hunter and put the habbeus grabbus on him, or to eliminate him if he resists arrest or being "deported".. We're forcing the UN to do its job, Richard.. And it's about time for them to stop taking US "containment" for granted... Hawk