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: GST who wrote (118282)	11/1/2003 8:56:27 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

GST:Don't Feel Bad. We argued this at length at the time with the same outcome. The " serious consequences " wording was deliberately placed as a compromise to Bush who wanted stronger wording STATING " military action ".This was the straw that broke the camel's back,so to speak." serious consequences " N-E-V-E-R gave Bush a UN mandate to invade Iraq. Anyway, it is all here on this thread,but those who wish to re-write history know no bounds of their willingness to continue the " Big Lie ". Sad. KC

To: GST who wrote (118282)	11/2/2003 3:13:06 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you cannot understand that there are differences in language by the UN Security Council it is not because others do not understand. No GST.. I FULLY understand the language. And I understand the context in which such language was formalized and the expected intent of non-compliance. What you WILLFULLY choose to ignore is that with 660, US and coalition forces had not yet massed upon Kuwait and Iraq's border. There was also NO vote on the part of Congress authorizing use of force when 660 was issued. It took 6 months of preparations and a last minute vote to authorize military force by that body on January 12th, 1991(4 days prior to hostilities). desert-storm.com Clearly the use of force was LESS of an onus under 660 because no sanctions had yet been applied. And even when UNSC 678 was issued (all necessary means) in November, 1990, there had NOT YET been a US congressional resolution for US forces deployed to the region to be used (do to on-going political battle between Bush 1 and congressional democrats as to whether a declaration of war was required). HOWEVER, in the case of 1441, the US congress HAD ALREADY ISSUED an authorization to use force prior to the UN resolution being issued referring to "serious consequences". All the "stars were aligned" toward inevitable military action when the UNSC passed 1441. They, IN FACT, knew that if they passed that resolution the US would use military force should Saddam remain in material breach. So maybe you should spend more time getting your history straight than trying to defend an indefensible position. Because THERE IS NO WAY to claim the UN didn't know the US was going to use force when they issued 1441. usinfo.state.gov Go back and read 1441 and pay attention to the reference to 687. Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area, That means UNTIL Saddam had fulfilled his obligations under the cease-fire agreements to fully comply and satisfy the UN that it had accounted for ALL WMDs (not just destroyed them), that the "objective of restoring international peace and security", as declared in 678, would not be fulfilled. And if 678 was not fulfilled, ALL NECESSARY MEANS could be used to obtain compliance with that binding resolution. And if that isn't sufficient for you, then try and ignore this section: Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance, Of course, if you choose not to bother understanding plain English, you can always learn French. Hawk

To: GST who wrote (118282)	11/2/2003 9:02:09 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The price of being wrong Mona Charen October 31, 2003 townhall.com The Left's criticism of President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq makes no sense historically, strategically or morally. Democrats like John Kerry insist that the president has done everything wrong since Congress voted to authorize war (Kerry's vote in the affirmative has dogged his campaign for the nomination of a dovish party). All of the Democratic candidates insist that Bush should not have taken the nation to war without the full participation of the United Nations. What they never address is this: President Bush sought the support and participation of the United Nations, returning again and again to that body virtually begging it to uphold its own resolutions. France, Germany and sometimes Russia -- nations that were only too happy to trade with Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- declined to agree. Without France's OK, the U.N. Security Council could not pass a final resolution endorsing the use of force. If Kerry or Dean or Sharpton had been president at the time, would they have permitted France to dictate U.S. foreign policy? The answer may be yes, if the Clinton administration is any guide. As Rich Lowry reminds us in "Legacy," the Clinton administration sought European support for a strong stand against Serbia in 1993. The Europeans balked. Clinton backed down. The resulting massacres took the lives of tens of thousands. Have the enthusiasts for United Nations action noticed that the U.N. has pulled out of Baghdad at the first sign of trouble? Democrats further argue that our failure to find weapons of mass destruction proves that the war was illegitimate. In fact, not satisfied to say that Bush erred, they insist -- against logic -- that Bush purposely deceived the world about the presence of the WMDs so as to drag us into an unnecessary war. Have they thought this through? In the first place, Bush was hardly alone in believing Iraq possessed WMDs. All of the Democratic candidates thought so, too. As did the U.N., the British, the French (yes, the French should know, they built Saddam's first reactor back in 1981), the Russians and even Scott Ritter. He certainly possessed them in the past, and used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. And why would Bush lie about something that would so rapidly be revealed? But there is another question, as well. Suppose it turns out that Bush acted on the basis of bad intelligence. We can judge a decisionmaker only on the basis of what was known at the time. A good president will weigh the consequences of being wrong in both directions. If we did not act, and Saddam was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons that he in turn shared with terrorists, hundreds of thousands might have died. If we did act, and it turned out that Saddam was less threatening to other nations than suspected, then what? We're seeing what. A vicious dictator who supported terrorism in the region and tortured and starved his own people on a truly gruesome scale has been deposed. Did massive numbers of innocent Iraqis die? No. In fact, as Walter Russell Mead has pointed out, continuing the sanctions for one more year would have killed more Iraqi civilians than the war did. According to UNICEF, Saddam's response to sanctions was to permit 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of five to die each month (60,000 per year) so that he could purchase military equipment and palaces. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths in the recent conflict was estimated at 3,240 by The Associated Press. Further, it could well be argued that we have done the Iraqi people a huge service. We have liberated them and are now showering them with new schools, hospitals, electrical grids and fresh drinking water. There are plenty of countries around the world that would welcome a U.S. invasion. It's true that we have reasons beyond humanitarianism for doing this. But it remains a mystery that the Democrats cannot see the advantages to us. We are creating in Iraq an open, market-oriented, pro-Western (we hope) country in the heart of darkness that is the modern Middle East. This is a giant step toward draining the swamp that generates homicidal jihadis. It demonstrates strategic thinking on Bush's part. But the Democrats prefer endless talk, passivity and truckling to "our allies."