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: Hawkmoon who wrote (176467)	12/3/2005 10:59:46 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

"Bottom line, the UN has no business authorizing the use of military force by one state against another. That must remain the jurisdiction of the sovereign government of each member state." Resolution 83, June 1950 recommends that UN nations provide assistance to Korea to repel the armed attack by North Korea.... This is the type of recommendation that France and others wanted a vote on. The US didn't so it never came to a vote. The US knew that it couldn't get backing from France, Russia, and China so there was no point in letting a new resolution on Iraq and 1441(paragraph 13) come to a vote in the UNSC. That vote was supposed to be about the question of what were the consequences of paragraph 13 in UNSC 1441. Bottom line the US government wanted to bypass the UNSC. No where has the UN "directly authorized" the use of military force. You're trying to make a case on incorrect premises here.