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: epicure who wrote (175955)	11/27/2005 1:42:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Really? So let me get this straight, are you arguing that the security council would have supported Bush on this war, or did support him? That seems to be what you are saying- but I'd like to see you say it in concrete and specific terms. In March, 2003 Bush HAD 9 of 15 UNSC members (a majority) backing the use of military force against Iraq. Only the permanent vetoes of Saddam's "allies" France, Russia, and later China, would have prevented the passing of an actual (and UNPRECEDENTED) mandate to use military force to uphold 1441. Mind you that France and Russia wanted to require the UNSC to actually vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. That had NEVER been the case in all the history of the UN, not even in the case of the Korean War (where "all necessary means" was also the language used, as I recall). The UN charter prohibits the use of military force by one nation against another, except where that prohibition is LIFTED via the term "all necessary means".. By using that term, the UN essentially remains "blameless" from a legal standpoint from having order military force be used. All it has done is lifted the prohibition by permitting use of "all necessary means" as deemed appropriate by individual members of the UN. It's obviously a bit of "weasling" out of being responsible for military force being used on behalf of upholding its binding resolutions, but what France and Russia were trying to do was place the UN in the awkward position of actually "declaring international war" against Iraq. Nothing more needed to be done by the UNSC after 1441 was passed unanimously. It set the terms of compliance and individual members were free to determine if those terms had been met after reviewing the reports of the authorized UN inspection teams report in March, 2003. Hawk