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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (4894)	3/3/2003 6:22:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

And you are not the one to decide what those "means" are, unfortunately. That is my point since about five posts ago. It is the UN's decision. Not yours. Not the US'. Oh yeah?? Did the UN deciden how its member states would prosecute Iraq's removal from Kuwait?? NO... They just stated "all necessary means to restore peace and international stability".. You CAN'T win on this one Zonder... The UN uses language that deflects direct responsibility for military action. They leave that up to their member states as to how to enforce it's binding resolutions. Resolution 678 WAS the resolution authorizing the use of force.. It authorized it BY NOT FORBIDDING IT... And that authorization has NOT be rescinded... Argue with the UN lawyers, not me... They know the US has the authority to enforce the resolutions. It matters NOT that some UNSC members refused, or declined to participate in enforcing ANY of these resolutions against Iraq/Saddam. If the UN doesn't want force used against Iraq, the pass another resolution rescinding that language.. Hawk

To: zonder who wrote (4894)	3/3/2003 8:24:11 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The problem is that the US is the only country which can exercise force sufficient to enforce international law and order. Gulf War I was a UN authorized war. Many nations contributed some small token, irrelevant force. But only one nation was essential. That war was authorized by the UN but fought by the US. The other nations in the international coalition combined would not and probably could not have liberated Kuwait by themselves. Should the US not have a pre-eminent leadership role given the military facts of life? The fact is we live in a world with only one superpower, the US. And BTW the whole world is actually pretty damn lucky that is the case. All the talk about the UN and international law and the view of the US as just another country like say France or Canada. The reality is the UN is something the US created. I'm not entirely sure it was a good idea. It seems to lead people to think unrealistically. Without the US, there would be no effective institution called the UN - pretending for a moment it is an effective institution. Law and order within a country exist only because someone enforces it. And the same thing is true on an international level. I see only one potential enforcer of international law and order and it isn't the UN.