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: Brumar89 who wrote (112654)	8/25/2003 4:55:49 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There are two considerations: First there is the standard issues relating to the conduct of an army of occupation -- whether it be Saddam's occupation of Kuwait or the US occupation of Iraq. Second is the issue of sanctions and the end of the oil for food program. You confuse the resolutions that deal with the ending of the trade sanctions and the ending of the oil for food program with UN authorization of the occupation itself. The US agreed to UN stipulations as to the administration of oil exports and is now free to run the Iraqi oil industry as stipulated. The US retains the authority but there is a degree of transparency. This is no way authorizes the occupation. It merely authorizes the sale of oil. Saddam could have sold Kuwaiti oil on the same terms during his occupation of Kuwait because his army constituted an army of occupation with the same responsibilities and rights of occupation as the US now assumes in Iraq. The US is contemplating a UN resolution authorizing UN members to participate in the occupation of Iraq -- the sticking point is that the US is unwilling to cede its authority and the UN is not a creature of the United States -- the UN must operate under its own authority. The resolution is purely a political expedient for Washington to get countries like India to bail the US out of a costly and miserable occupation -- financially and in terms of troop commitments and loss of life. Time will tell what compromise is possible. It seems clear that the neocons would rather see our troops being shot on the streets of Baghdad than give up unilateralism.