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: Neocon who wrote (5056)	3/6/2003 7:03:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

What strikes me most forcibly is that the position of the "international law" community seems to be that serious use of force to enforce the will of the UN cannot be arrogated, but must be expressly delegated to some party. UNSC resolution 678 stated that "all necessary means will be used to restore peace and international stability".. They didn't say "launch an attack and militarily kill 50-80,000 Iraqi soldiers within 100 hours and physically remove them from Kuwait".. Just a VERY GENERAL "do what it takes" and left the means up to each individual member.. It was NOT DELEGATED to anyone in specific (such as the US).. Just "someone do something that accomplishes the UNSC's will".. That statement still pertains given the conditional nature of the ceasefire and Saddams refusal to abide. Thus, that "someone", once again, winds up being the US and UK (and a few other allies) because others are more interested in "jaw-jacking" about compliance than making Saddam actually do it. But a good article you posted, nonetheless. Hawk