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: Maurice Winn who wrote (136050)	6/9/2004 9:55:51 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I suppose the problem with 1441 was what should be done about the material breach. Not everyone agreed with the invasion, which seemed to many countries to lack sufficiently substantial reasons for going ahead. Actually, IMO, the problem was two-fold. The first problem was that certain permanent members of the UNSC had vested economic and personal financial reasons in preserving the Baathist regime. Reasons that they failed to disclose to the international community for fear of being accused of a conflict of interest (such as 1.3 Billion barrels of oil being allocated to Russia for sale, with some proceeds going directly to Putin's political party). Secondly, there was an inherent problem with wanting to accept what a declaration of "material breach" actually meant, namely a nullification of the cease fire accord (UNSC 687), requiring a re-initiation of hostilities to restore peace and regional stability, as demanded under UNSC 678. Btw, I would applaud having NZ troops participating in rebuilding Iraq. I've always liked the "Kiwis" and believe they are great soldiers. Hawk