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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (6062)	4/1/2003 1:17:08 AM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

687?

To: Doug R who wrote (6062)	4/1/2003 3:49:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

660 ONLY pertains to the Iraq/Kuwait matter insofar as it was demanded of Iraq to leave Kuwait. 1441 does not provide for war. Uh.. that's not quite right.. There was a cease fire which was signed by both sides at the end of the last war. It was not a peace treaty, but merely a truce declared which was dependent upon Saddam's compliance with cease fire requirements. That means the war was only "over" so long as the Saddam complied.. And those UN resolutions were ALL binding resolutions instructing Baghdad to comply with those cease fire terms... 1441 was the resolution that declared Saddam in "material breach" of his obligations under those cease fire terms, and provided him a limited window to comply. It was passed 15-0.. And since 1441 effectively states that Iraq has violated the terms of the cease fire, that means the cease fire is null and void. Not worth the paper it is written on, nor were any of the resolutions supposedly meant to compel Saddam's compliance. Which means that we default back to UNSC 678, which stated that "all necessary means" would be used to restore peace and international stability. And if we had authority to use military force then, we certainly have it now. Hawk

To: Doug R who wrote (6062)	4/1/2003 4:07:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

660 basically said - Iraq, get out of Kuwait. 678 basically said member states can kick Iraq's ass to enforce 600 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS ("all necessary means" means kick their ass if you have to and it doesn't just apply to 660 but to all subsequent resolutions down the line). 687 basically said Iraq had to account for and destroy its WMD's and long range missilies. 1441 basically said Iraq is still in material breach of the previous resolutions and this is their LAST OPPORTUNITY to comply. So clearly, we have legal authorization under 678 to enforce compliance with 687, 1441, and etc. We don't really need any authorization other than 678, but we sought it to get more allies, help the UN be a more effective, pro-active institution. Second, we're a sovereign nation and don't need anyone's approval to defend ourselves or our vital interests. the US has openly held the Persian Gulf is a vital interest of the US worth fighting for for decades (Carter Doctrine). Plus since 9/11, we have an interest in keeping terror supporting thugs like Saddam Hussein from getting nukes and other WMD's.