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: JohnM who wrote (87739)	3/29/2003 4:06:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There are two levels here, Hawk. One level is that of the speech you posted. The second the actions of Wilson and the allies. Bingo! What we say is often deliberately ambiguous, while the actions are often more direct. This is no different than how the UN's authorization to "use all necessary means to restore peace and international stability" was translated as military use of force during Desert Storm. They UN NEVER directly stated that military force would be used to eject Saddam from Kuwait. It NEVER HAS stated that force would be used to impose it's will, not even during the Korean Conflict. But that's what happened, and we all knew that was going to be the means by which that goal would be achieved, military force of arms.. All the UN resolution did was "lift" any prohibition against using force of arms to achieve its will. Thus, the belief that the UN would "authorize" use of arms against Saddam for the current operation is a pipe-dream. The most it would have called for is "all necessary means to disarm Iraq and restore peace and international stability to the region". It would NOT have called for a regime change under ANY circumstance, but it would be IMPLIED that this was the mission tasking of the UN. And it would be implemented as the coalition members saw fit. Thus, it would be an imposition of the will of the UN to enforce it's resolutions by all means necessary.. But those terms ALREADY EXIST in 1441. It specifically acknowledges previous UN resolutions upon which it was derived, namely 678, which specified "all necessary means", as well as promising "grave consequences".. Thus, all the criteria for legitimate use of force have been met under 1441, and previous UNSC resolutions cited in it. Thus, for anyone claiming to state that the US had to wait for a SPECIFIC UN resolution authorizing use of force is fooling themselves. The UNSC doesn't write its resolutions in such a manner. They say ambiguous things, which are carried out as the members see fit. Hawk