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 (123825)	1/28/2004 2:45:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The UNSC (and not individual members) is seized of the matter after 686, 687 "to secure peace and security in the area". Hmmm... So I guess you're kicking the US off the UNSC now? Two permanent members of the UNSC were involved in enforcing those UN resolutions against Iraq, the US and UK. Only 3 permanent members of the UNSC were involved in enforcing 678 (Desert Storm).. the US, UK, and France. All members of the UNSC acknowledged that Iraq was in material breach of 687 and all subsequent UNSC resolutions (15-0 vote), including permanent members France, Russia, and China (and even UNSC member, Syria, could not deny Iraq was in breach). Thus, the UNSC remaining "seized" of the matter includes all of the member of the UNSC, including the US and UK. When the UNSC declared Iraq in material breach by a unanimous vote, it declared Iraq in violation of its obligations and gave it 90 days to resolve them and come into compliance. If Iraq failed to do so, "severe consequences" were authorized. There was no doubt what those severe consequences would be since the US Congress had ALREADY approved an authorization to use force. The only thing in question was when. France wanted to maintain 200,000 US/UK forces in their Kuwaiti encampments throughout the sweltering hot summer months, giving Iraq another 6 months to comply. Bush elected to keep to his word, and to the mandate from congress, to enforce the UNSC resolutions if Iraq failed to comply within 90 days. So you have to ask yourself Boris, if you would have been willing to permit France, Russia, and Germany to dictate the disposition of 200,000 troops that did not belong them. Were you willing to subjugate US and UK soveriegnty to the whims of 3 countries who had every economic interest in protecting and maintain Saddam's brutal and genocidal regime? Maybe if they had opted to participate in massing troops on the Kuwaiti border, I might have been willing to give them more say. But they did not, thus their voice in the UNSC was effectively null and void after those 90 days elapsed. As far as I'm concerned, and most legal minds, to vow "severe consequences" to any failure to resolve the material breach, is even harsher language than the more open ended "all necessary means to restore peace and regional security" I can hardly wait to see how you respond to the above. (and I can only give you a "B-" this time around for your effort in discussing 687. But you're better than most of the others who have attempted the effort. Hawk