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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (4482)	11/13/2003 9:50:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 20773

Good. Then we agree that US didn't have the right to decide in UN's place what to do about Iraq. Not quite so fast Z.. ;0) Apparently it was good enough when the UNSC passed 678, authorizing "all necessary means" to restore international peace and stability in the area.. Because the UN didn't tell and/or direct anyone to use military force during Desert Storm. All it did was lift it's prohibition.. And furthermore, when 678 was passed authorizing "all necessary means", the US Congress had NOT passed an authorization to use military. That did not come until January, 1991, with hostilities only commencing 4 days later. This is in DIRECT CONTRAST to UNSC 1441, which the UNSC passed CLEARLY AWARE that the UN Congress had ALREADY issued its authorization to use force. And despite recognizing that the US was preparing and fully authorized by its congress to use military force, the UNSC passed 1441 with unanimous assent, 15-0. And they didn't include any language that the US needed to "revisit" the council to decide what those "serious consequences" would be. So don't you think it's just a bit disingenuous to continue trying to play France's propaganda game? Hawk dear... Why would I have to do that? Because they never have directed the use of military force. It's antithetical to their charter to direct military action. ALL the UN has ever done to enforce its resolutions are economic isolation and indirectly lifting prohibitions on military force through such deliberately ambiguous terms as "all necessary means". And it's important to note that the use of force was DIRECTLY what France and Russia were trying to get the UN to direct with their claim that only the UN could authorize the use of force. The authority ALREADY existed with UNSC 678, temporarily suspended by the cease fire accords, and then RE-AUTHORIZED by 1441, when Iraq was declared in material breach of those accords. NEVER, not once, has the language of UNSC been nullified, or revoked. In fact, 1441 "recalled" 678's language as basis for it's authority. Hawk