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: Hawkmoon who wrote (101360)	6/12/2003 9:46:16 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tough nite Hawk. First Win, then Carl and now the Clown. You are doing the Lords work. Mike

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (101360)	6/12/2003 11:18:47 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>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..<<< They have no mandate to authorize regime change,nor does any other entity. >>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.<<< Yup! >>>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.<<< “ Serious consequences “ as worded in res. 1441 was NOT…repeat N-O-T intended to mean anything other than what was to be determined in a second res.It was spelled out quite clearly,since it was the prospect of “ regime change “ or “ military action “ that had that res. blocked in the negotiations.It wasn’t until the US and the UK et al backed off from the insistence of military action that 1441 was passed.Now how in the hell can it be assumed that 1441 was intended to mean “ military action “,let alone “ regime change “? >>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.<< So you would like a UN with a stronger mandate? Oooppsss….<GGG>…now I read this…….. >>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.<< My war objectives are quite simple Hawk.Attack my country or an ally of my country and war it is,unless my country or ally has been engaging in aggressive behavior.There I would reserve the right to judgement. >> 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.<< I believe once the bullets are flying,only the Geneva Convention On War needs adherence . >>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.<< A good argument,if it were not for the fact that 12 years had passed,Saddam was not a threat,and most countries were merely asking for more time for the weapons inspectors to do their work.Bush and Blair pulled the trigger. The rest is history. KC