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: Hawkmoon who wrote (122548)	12/30/2003 10:28:42 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

There is no excuse Hawk. The US tried everything in the book to get the Security Council to sign on to its invasion of Iraq and the Security Council was having none of it. The US decided to invade Iraq, needed the UN for political cover, couldn't get it and yet still tried -- like you -- to pretend it was acting on behalf of the UN. The UN Security Council supported continued inspections, not invasion at this time. The US decided to break from the UN and act unilaterally, conducting an invasion that was neither self-defense nor in the name of the UN. This kind of invasion/occupation is doomed to go badly from the get-go. The US was very poorly advised to conduct itself in this way and brought widespread disrepute to our fine nation, not to mention wasting vast sums of money and the thousands of fine young Americans who have already been wounded or killed.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122548)	12/31/2003 4:24:47 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "And the UN didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq in 1991 either." I'm not sure of your point here. There was no significant invasion of Iraq in 1991 in that no major cities were even put under siege much less captured. Re: "In fact, the UN has NEVER authorized the use of military force to carry out its resolutions. If you don't believe, take a look at UNSC 678 that was the basis for launching Desert Storm." Contrary to your assertion, UNSC 678 is generally held to be the resolution that authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait. For example: Resolution 678 (November 29, 1990) Authorised UN member states to use force if Iraq failed to withdraw its troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. The day after the ultimatum expired, the US and allies launched a massive military campaign. iraqpeaceteam.org Maybe in your world UNSC 678 wasn't a resolution authorizing the use of force, but here's the actual text, with the authorizing words highlighted: ... Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ... fas.org The meaning of "authorizes ... to use all necessary means", is the authorization to go to war. Re: "In the case of 1441, when that resolution was violated, UNSC 678 immediately came back into effect, especially since it was one of the primary precedents authorizing the language in 1441." This is hilarious. At one point you're saying that UNSC 678 didn't authorize war, but then you turn around and claim that UNSC 1441 did, because 678 was then put back in effect? BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'm having trouble keeping your confusion straight. But the fact is that resolution 1441 never uses the word "authorizes", except in "recalling" resolution 678: ... Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area. ... fas.org Note that they used "authorized", indicating a past tense, rather than "authorizes", indicating an ongoing situation. Further, note that the definition of "recall" is as follows: ... To remember; recollect. ... dictionary.reference.com If this isn't clear enough for you, then you should know that the meaning of the word is quite clear to the diplomats at the UN who use it in hundreds of documents as a cursory search of their website will reveal. Here's the corresponding version of 1441 in a more precise language, German: ... daran erinnernd, dass die Mitgliedstaaten durch seine Resolution 678 (1990) ermächtigt wurden, alle erforderlichen Mittel einzusetzen, um seiner Resolution 660 (1990) vom 2. August 1990 und allen nach Resolution 660 (1990) verabschiedeten einschlägigen Resolutionen Geltung zu verschaffen und sie durchzuführen und den Weltfrieden und die internationale Sicherheit in dem Gebiet wiederherzustellen, ... un.org Note that the meaning of "daran erinnernd" is "on that remembering", which is a more precise version of "recalling". Nor was resolution 1441 violated. The Iraqis declared that they didn't have any WMDs. This is not a violation. The US proved the Iraqi case for them the hard way by invading and failing to find WMDs, all while Bush and Blair claimed to be in possession of secret information about where those WMDs were. That this "logic" made sense to a lot of silly people at the time does not make it valid after events have proved it otherwise. Before the war, the Iraqis were running around doing everything they could to avoid a war. The UN recognized that and refused to authorize a war. Bush was convinced by his neocon morons that a war would be easy and necessary, that WMDs would be easy to find, etc., etc., and he swallowed the whole story. But the simple fact is that the UN did not give authorization for us to pointlessly and ineffectively kill thousands and as a result stir up the Middle East to vehemently hate us with passions much deeper than before. It is fascinating that, in the context of so many administration statements to the effect that the UN did not matter, you would hold such a contrary view. I guess after we leave Iraq in tatters, you'll be exonerating Bush, and instead blaming the debacle on the UN for authorizing the war, LOL. -- Carl