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: Win Smith who wrote (122484)	12/29/2003 7:42:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There's something fundamentally loopy about your UN obsession. The Cheney / Rumsfeld inner circle that wanted the Iraq war most of all never bothered to hide their contempt for international institutions in general and the UN in particular. But somehow, you have them going to war for the UN. Whatever. My thinking being fundamentally loopy? Geezus!!.. If ever there's an example of the pot calling the kettle black, that's it!!.. As I recall, Bush went to the UN FIRST, telling them it was time to finally get serious about enforcing the binding resolutions against Iraq. And after much controversy and debate, as well as hand-wringing by those who resented being prodded and poked into actually giving teeth to these UNSC resolutions they'd been a part in passing (France, Russia) over the previous decade, as well as the US congress passing an authorization to use force, they all unanimously agreed, 15-0, that Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire accords. The US didn't have to go through the UN.. The language of UNSC 678 and 687 were clear enough. The fact that UN inspections had been terminated due to non-cooperation by Iraq in 1998 was sufficient "casus belli" to resume hostilities. But no.. Bush went to the UN in order to provide its leadership the opportunity to step up and enforce those binding resolutions it was required to under Chapter VII of the UN charter. As for the "grand jury" line, that's pretty silly too. Hardly.. the UNSC of 1991 set in motion a course of events that was required to be carried out and enforced. Bush, like his predecessor timidly asserted previously, merely presented this concept (paraphrasing).. Here we have some 17 laws that have been passed by the UN against Iraq.. If there is to be any form of respect for international order on this planet, so necessary to fight global terrorism, the UN must step forward and enforce its binding resolutions.. And they cannot be permitted to continue issuing international "injunctions" that they never bother to enforce and as a permanent member of the security council, we cannot bare the sole responsibility for enforcing those resolutions.. Pretty friggin' simple Win.. The "stamp of approval" for regime change in the face of a grievous cease fire violation had already been provided.. UNSC 1441 was merely ONE MORE stamp that formalized the status of "Material Breach".. Hawk