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: boris_a who wrote (123799)	1/27/2004 3:22:29 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's an explicit authorization to cooperate with Kuwait (for matters of self-defense) I don't see anything in there related to "matters of self-defense". After all, Kuwait ceased to exist as a country once occupied by Iraq. The Kuwaiti government was in exile. And if I recall correctly, Saddam failed to comply with his obligations to fully pay reparations to Kuwait. But what you should REALLY be looking at is UNSC 686 (the actual cease fire) and 687 (which stipulates the conditions which Iraq must meet to maintain that cease fire). Remember.. the UNSC resolutions following 678 essentially put Saddam on "parole". They had every authorization to "restore peace and regional security".. Regional certainly does not solely relate to Kuwait, now does it. And Kuwait had no official cause to disarm Iraq of WMD since they were not used during the initial invasion, or Desert Storm.. No.. the UNSC clearly intended for the cease fire to relate to regional security. Otherwise, why would they need to continue citing UNSC 678 in all the subsequent resolutions (if they only pertained to the actual self-defense of Kuwait)? However, I do give you an "A for effort" in at least presenting a viable debating point. Hawk