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: Noel de Leon who wrote (176451)	11/30/2005 8:24:50 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We were talking about UNSC backed action contra unilateral action. Noel, there are currently over 50 members of the Coalition in Iraq. It's hardly "unilateral", although admittedly the US forces comprise the majority of troops in Iraq. What we had was a schism within the UNSC, with many UN nations opting not to participate in the war (and vocally displaying their opposition). It was the same thing during Desert Storm, as well as the Korean War. It just wasn't quite as vocal because those wars didn't necessarily call for the overthrow of the enemy regime. The problem is that Bush and company are anti UN and as such acted in a way to weaken that organization. Oh, my goodness.. that's such a load of crap (sorry, but it is).. The US was ALREADY weak and corrupt, as displayed by 13 years of unfulfilled binding resolutions, the oil for food scandal, and the fact that US and British forces were the primary means used for applying military and economic sanctions against Iraq throughout the '90s. What Bush dis was an attempt to re-energize the "enforcement" side of the UN charter which SOLELY depends upon the willingnes of members states to undertake coercive force to uphold those UNSC resolutions. It's like having a city council, or State legislature impose ordinances and laws, but being unwilling to do actually do anything but issue proclamations and political rhetoric about what they are doing about crime. In the end, without physical enforcement of laws, including international law, that governmental body will be weakend and ridiculed to the extent that it nothing more than a haven for corruption and political opportunism. If anything, what Bush has done has forced the UN to restructure and rethink how its it going to make itself relevant. Hawk