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: bentway who wrote (186182)	5/5/2006 7:52:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Kofi Annan, Head of the UN, called Bush's invasion of Iraq "illegal"! WHAT WAS ILLEGAL was how Kofi Annan REFUSED to enforce over 15 different BINDING RESOLUTIONS against Iraq. That's what was ILLEGAL!!! He failed to do his job!! All while his son, and a number of other UN SENIOR OFFICIALS and members, lined their pockets with money from the scandal ridden Oil For Food program. Those binding resolutions should have been enforced no later than 1998-1999, when that other apparently "illegal" war (where the UN never specifically authorized the use of military force) in 1991 was temporarily halted as a cease-fire, pending Iraq's full compliance with the cease fire terms. Everything that happened in 2003 was a direct follow-on to Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (UNSC 678). And another point... Kofi Annan (as well as France, Russia.. etc) was committing an illegal act by attempting to turn the UN into a warmaking organization. IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF THE UNSC to direct member states to use military force against another member state. The UNSC's only role is to temporarily waive the prohibition against using military force with such language as "all necessary means", leaving the definition of those means to EACH MEMBER GOVERNMENT. Some members may elect to use military force, others may elect to use economic and political sanctions. But once the UN lifts those prohibitions, EACH MEMBER has the right to determine best how to resolve the issue. The place of the UNSC, according to it's charter, under Article 41 and 42, is to make decisions and recommendations ONLY UP TO THE POINT WHERE MILITARY FORCES ARE USED AS "DEMONSTRATIONS". It's RIGHT HERE in Article 41: Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. And Article 42, while probably confusing to someone like you who doesn't understand the difference between a show of force, and the application of it, only provides the UNSC the authority to consider DEMONSTRATIONS of force. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. un.org NOWHERE does the UN CHARTER give the UNSC the right to obligate member states to resort to military force to enforce it's binding resolutions. Going to war MUST REMAIN the sovereign right of each member government. All the UNSC was required to do was make a finding, which is exactly what they did in UNSC 1441. They found that Iraq remained in Material Breach of a cease fire and threatened "Serious Consequences" should they fail to comply. Even France's Mr. Villepin admitted that "serious consequences" represented military force, if necessary. Now maybe you want Kofi Annan to have the right to decide when this country is permitted to go to war, but I certainly don't. He has NO RIGHT to declare the actions of a UNSC member, in pursuit of the enforcement of a binding UNSC resolution, "illegal". He has no right to undermine the UNSC in that manner. If he wants to declare something to be "illegal" then he should have declared UNSC 1441 to be such. Then he could have stepped his @ss down from office and took the first flight back to Ghana.. And you could have gone with him, for all I care. Hawk