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: h0db who wrote (132296)	5/9/2004 1:39:11 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I'd really like to know how you can simultaneously cite UN resolutions as justification for whatever the Bushies wanted to do, yet disparage the institution at every opportunity. You are relying on, in most cases, decade-old resolutions. It should be plainly clear.. The UN is supposed to be more than debating club. There is a DISTINCT difference between Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolutions. Chapter VII resolutions have the force of international law. I believe in the UN as a critical organization for dealing with conflict resolution. But I also believe that when it issues Chapter VII, especially by a 15-0 unanimous decision, there IS AN OBLIGATION for members of the UNSC to back that decision's implementation, even if it requires the use of force. When you have certain nations (we know they are) effectively acting as a surrogate "agent" on behalf of the intransigent government (in this case Iraq) AFTER they have ALREADY agreed that said government is in material breach of a temporary cease fire accord, that's a clear sign that the organization has broken down in fulfilling its mission. And it becomes even more apparent that these nations acted in the capacity of "allies" of Iraq, by thwarting the enforcement of 17 binding resolutions ALREADY passed against that government. And with the finding of the oil for food scandal involving those two nations, we have compelling evidence for making such statements. It's critical that the UN act in some manner of cohesion if we're going to thwart the Islamist agenda. It was critical that the UN deal with Iraq in a coordinated manner without partisan interests taking predominance. It was just indefensible for France, Germany, and Russia to openly subvert the enforcement of those UNSC resolutions against Iraq. And it was even more indefensible that they all participated in the oil for food scandal (to varying degrees). The centerpiece of the Bush Admin's case for invasion was the presentation Feb 5, 2003 presentation by Powell at the UN. Powell's Deputy, Rich Armitage, now says that that presentation is "a source of great distress for the secretary." Which was ridiculous in the first place. Iraq had 90 days to come clean on its WMD programs. Blix could NOT declare Iraq in compliance at the end of that 90 days. That should have been the end of the discussions related to Iraq, and military operations should have commenced reintiating the round of hostilities that temporarily ended Desert Storm. Had the entire UNSC displayed a unified voice that Saddam was facing a military invasion, it's QUITE LIKELY this war would NEVER have occurred. But Saddam believed that his buddies, Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder were going to bail him out. They gave him a false sense of security that they would prevent Bush from attacking him. But he, and they, were wrong. And now Chirac is trying to "cuddle up" with Bush (probably because of the information discovered related to the oil for food scandal), and Bush will accomodate him. The US wanted a single resolution (1441)--one that layed out UN demands on Iraq, and authorized invasion if Iraq did not comply. What more authorization did Bush need? We had UNSC 678 that provided authorization for UN members to use all necessary means to restore peace and international security in the region. We had UNSC 687, the temporary cease fire that specified the UN's demands for Iraqi disarmament of its WMD programs. And then we had UNSC 1441, declaring that Iraq was in material breach of the above two stated resolutions, and vowing "severe consequences" if Iraq did not become compliant within 90 days. UNSC 144 used far more serious verbage than any of the previous UNSC resolutions. It actually declare that there would be consequences, whereas the 678 merely authorized all necessary means to expel Iraq from Kuwait.. "All necessary means" includes, but hardly mandates the use of military force. It could have been sanctions, making a deal, or even throwing Saddam a party. Whatever it took to expel Iraq from Kuwait and return the region to peace and stability. But because Saddam forced us to fight during Desert Storm, the UN had every right to force the disarmament of Iraq's WMD program. We set the terms and Saddam was required to comply or face resumption of hostilities.. After all, what is a cease fire? A temporary halt in hostilities. And if one party is guilty of violating that cease fire, its implied that a state of hostilities has resumed. But again Blair insisted that 1441 would not suffice, and that the US would have to push for a second resolution. Hence Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN. So we pursued, and on the basis of the numbers, would have won a majority of the UNSC vote. It's not Bush's fault that two permanent members of the UNSC were willing to do anything necessary to protect their little puppet dictator. We had the votes to pass it and France and Russia knew that.. So they exercised their permanent veto authority.. Hawk

To: h0db who wrote (132296)	5/9/2004 6:27:32 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Hawk, I'd really like to know how you can simultaneously cite UN resolutions as justification for whatever the Bushies wanted to do, yet disparage the institution at every opportunity. You are relying on, in most cases, decade-old resolutions. >>> On what date did Saddam meet the conditions set for ending the war which the UN sanctioned in 1991 .? On what date did he stop developing or importing missiles with a longer range than permitted.? On what date did stop shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly zones.? On what date did he permit scientists to be interviewsed in private or to leave the country for interviews.? Why did he import ten times as much chlorine as the country could use.? Why did he import and store barrels of pesticides ( WMD precursors) in his armament storage areas? Why did he move (or pretend to move) materials or equipment from inspection sites just before the Inspectors arrived? Sig@somanywhys.com