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 (175977)	11/27/2005 2:51:03 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Any single member of the UN security council can veto any action by the rest - as France and Russia said they would RE invading Iraq. The US has used this provision over and over to protect Israel from sanctions. So, the chimp had no lawful order from the UN to invade Iraq, because he didn't have the votes and/or promise of no veto.

To: epicure who wrote (175977)	11/28/2005 5:59:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Who do you think was behind the creation of the United Nations? (Hint: It wasn't France or Russia.) yale.edu The War Years: U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his Secretary of State Cordell Hull still believed in the Wilsonian concept of the League even though it had been discredited for failing to deal effectively with the aggressive tactics which eventually led to another worldwide conflict. During the war years, Roosevelt instructed his State Department staff to reconstitute a framework based on the League idea which would not only provide the means for consultation and peaceful settlement but also give the organization enforcement powers, or 'teeth' to prevent aggression. It was assumed that the new institution would have a plenary assembly and an 'executive' council much as the League had done. However, because the new organization was to have enforcement powers a new strategy had to be devised. Under the League, the Council and the Assembly had concurrent powers and neither had enforcement authority. Ruth Russell, in her excellent book on the period describes the thinking of the State Department and Roosevelt at the time: **************************** Whether it was the UN or the League of Nations, it has been US policy to have an effective forum for dealing with international conflicts and threats. We have a pretty strong interest in preserving the credibility of the UN and NOT permitting states like France and Russia to use their permanent vetoes SOLELY to advance their parochial economic and political interests. Especially when it undermines the enforcement of binding UNSC resolutions issued under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But then again, maybe you think that's perfectly alright.. Hawk