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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (101347)	6/12/2003 8:47:46 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Apparently, that right resides primarily with Rummy, in whom we trust.

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (101347)	6/12/2003 8:50:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And absent the UN,who E-X-A-C-T-l-Y do you believe has the " RIGHT " to exact " regime change ",and by what measure is " regime change " to be deemed necessary? The UN saying regime change (or anything else) in a particular situation is right or wrong, or legal or illegal, doesn't make it so. The UN is not sovereign over the world, it is a group of sovereign nations not a government over those nations. Tim

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (101347)	6/12/2003 9:39:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And absent the UN,who E-X-A-C-T-l-Y do you believe has the " RIGHT " to exact " regime change ",and by what measure is " regime change " to be deemed necessary? KCFOS, The UN has NEVER in its entire history EVER authorized a change of regime in a government. Not in Korea. Not during Desert Storm. Not Afghanistan, Not Bosnia, Not Kosovo.. And not in any of the following cases either: un.org The UN has never DIRECTLY authorized a regime change. That would then make the population of the target nation the direct ward of the United Nations since that organization would be responsible for authorizing the regime change. So a vote to take military action, after 1441 had already been passed authorizing "serious consequences" (military action) should Saddam not comply would have been unprecedented. All the UNSC does is use vague language in issuing its authorization for use of force, letting those members who step up to enforce those resolutions decide how to carry it out. Again, I don't want the UN dictating my war objectives and telling member states how to engage their forces. I don't think you do either. That would be like a judge telling a cop how to handle a search warrant. Or telling a SWAT team how to tactically carry out an arrest warrant on a terrorist cell. Saddam had plenty of opportunity to comply. More than we should have given him. The UNSC agreed he was in material breach, voting 15-0, and that's all it really took for the US to decide that the cease fire of 1991 was null and void if Saddam didn't comply in the specified period of time. Hawk