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 (123818)	1/28/2004 5:49:35 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This position is, ammm, refreshingly adventorous. OTOH, I find it so bizarre that im inclined to stop the argument here. I accept your concession... But the argument is not new.. Both the Clinton and Bush administration have cited UNSC 678 as grounds for taking military action against an intransigent Baathist regime. The problem is that more attention is being paid to the "emotional" argument related to whether the US should launch pre-emptive war against a brutal dictatorship (which I also felt was a controversial argument, no matter how intellectually valid as a strategy). Certainly this was the approach France and Germany took, even though they were trying to put the UN into the business of usurping its member state's rights by making the decision for them whether they should wage war or not (especially when they had none of their own troops committed). What they really feared was Bush "peeing in their pond" over in Iraq, and hurting their cozy relationship with Saddam. But more legitimacy would have likely resulted if Bush had strictly relied upon Iraq's non-compliance with the UNSC resolutions as our primary focus, and that the coalition action was a response to an unresolved material breach situation. For this approach was far more legitimate in the eyes of the international community than the perception of America running rampant.. However, it lacks the immediacy which is often required to bring one's population to a war mentality (look how people react as if 9/11 was ancient history, or not an act of war). But UNSC 678 was still in effect in both November, 2002 when UNSC 1441 was passed since it was "recalled" or carried forward. They would have not recalled it if it were not pertinent to the current resolution. You might find it bizarre now, but if you do some research, you'll discover that it's neither a new, or novel, argument. In fact, 660 and 678 are the basis for everything that has happen in Iraq since 1991. All other resolutions have been amendments to those two resolutions. Hawk