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 (112712)	8/25/2003 8:40:31 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Brumar, What we should have done then is to accept saddams annexation of kuwait while striking a deal with him regarding his oil and our support or benign neglect in helping him reach his limited objectives back then for regional control. Given what has transpired with saudi arabia, perhaps he should have been encouraged to conquer SA, while destroying al quaeda.<g> Sino-Soviet dispute redux anyone? Is that what GST is really saying? Actually not a bad idea given the popular view of us in kuwait and al quaedas partial ownership of saudi arabia. Plus the difficulties in pacifying iraq. I wonder! <g> Mike

To: Brumar89 who wrote (112712)	8/25/2003 7:22:29 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Quite right. Iraq HAD the same rights as an occupying power to sell Kuwaiti oil until the UN imposed trade sanctions. If the UN had done nothing then Saddam would have had every right to sell Kuwaiti oil. The UN took action to prevent this from happening, and placed an embargo on Iraqi sales of oil. The US has the right to sell Iraqi oil -- that is already a given under international law. The UN resolutions to which you refer were aimed at removing trade sanctions. Had trade sanctions remained in effect, we could not sell their oil. The sanctions were lifted because the Iraqi regime was deemed to be destroyed -- there was no regime left on which to impose sanctions. This in no way authorizes the invasion and accords the US no authorization save what is already permitted any country that has invaded another country and holds the country in the grip of an army of occupation. The US is simply an occupying country and the same laws apply to the US as applied to Saddam in Kuwait BEFORE the imposition of sanctions. In neither case did the UN authorize an occupation. A UN resolution to authorize UN involvement by member countries is now being discussed, but it remains to be seen if any thing comes of it. The central issue is the unwillingness of the US to cede control of Iraq to the UN.