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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (472)	3/25/2003 12:31:42 PM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7832

Then you understand why I feel your response about Res 1441 is irrelevant. The UN, through resolution 1441, has said that Saddam has not complied with resolution 687. It is very relevant. If the Security Council believed that Saddam was not in possession of WMD when 1441 was passed, the language of that resolution should have made that clear. No. The US made a mockery of the Security Council by calling it "irrelevant" unless it votes the way US wants it to. No, the US calls it irrelevant because the Security Council is unwilling to back up the resolutions with the force promised and reaffirmed in all the resolutions. Those resolution clearly state that failure to comply will result in force in order to compel Saddam to comply. Not following up on that promised force makes the Resolution irrelavent. As these resolutions are the only weapon the Security Council has to handle ilk like Saddam, it too becomes irrelevant. What good did the previous resolutions do in the absence of force? UN does not enforce its Sec Council resolutions by force. Right, the UN doesn't enforce anything and is therefore irrelevant. US is playing vigilante here, taking the law in its hands. It is the UN Sec Council who has issued the Res 1441 you are so enamoured with, and only the UN Sec Council can decide on the measures to be taken if they are not respected. Not the US. Wrong. Directly from res 678: 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, 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; From 687 (hint this is a subsequent resolution): Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, 1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire: From 1441: Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Despite what you would like to believe this language gives the US and Britain, as member states, the legal authority to conduct this military action. I most certainly don't agree with you stance of appeasing Saddam and the UN resolutions clearly give the coalition the legal avenue to conduct this campaign.