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: Michael Watkins who wrote (151358)	11/10/2004 8:51:25 AM
From: Neocon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am not claiming that it is uncontroversial, or I would not have posted varied summaries. I am claiming that it was not clearly forbidden, especially considering the whole course of events, from the first Gulf War on. What is not forbidden is allowed. First, it was a resumption of hostilities under the initial mandate, which did not not merely enjoined ousting Iraq from Quwait, but do what was necessary to restore order and stability to the region. Second, there was no clear requirement for a second resolution authorizing force. But there is a third point, deriving from the sovereignty argument: if the UN does not want an open renunciation of the charter by the United States, it is best to let this sleeping dog lie.