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 (124004)	1/29/2004 7:52:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Boris.. there was no automaticity under UNSC 678 either. "All necessary means... " does not mandate the use of military force and never did. But it does not prohibit the use of force either. We're debating the legality of Bush/Blair's decision to invade Iraq. It is clear that 1441 contained the SAME AUTHORITY as 678, as that resolution was specifically cited within it's text. How that resolution was implemented to resolve the material breach was left to individual UNSC members. Whether there was "automaticity" or not, at the particular moment of the resolutions passing is irrelevant. Because NO MEMBER NATION is going to have it's political, or military, options limited or dictated to it by the text of a UNSC resolution. For example, even under Desert Storm, there was no automaticity.. If there had been, EVERY UN MEMBER NATION would been OBLIGATED to commit military forces "automatically". But obviously not every nation did participate, now did they? But let's get to brass tacks here.. The US stood on the verge of winning a second UNSC approval to remove Saddam. But Chirac decided that, rather than abstaining, he was going to veto any second resolution. Thus, if Chirac had the right to veto the enforcement of a resolution that it voted for in the first place, the US had the right to opt not to seek such a new resolution, citing the authority contained within 1441 and 678. We can debate and argue the soundness of Bush's decision, but I don't believe anyone can impugn the legality of his actions any more than people can claim Chirac acted legally to prevent enforcement of UNSC resolutions. Hawk