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: geode00 who wrote (191641)	7/14/2006 3:06:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state. Also relevant is that the Security Council authorized an armed response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and then after the termination of hostilities required Iraq to end its missile and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Thus under Article 51 "the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security," and the right of self-defense against an armed attack, applicable until the Security Council has done so, is no longer in effect. While few would argue that the Security Council’s assumption of responsibility precludes self-defense in response to a future attack by Iraq, it weighs heavily against attempts to extend the boundaries of self-defense to justify use of force by the United States and selected other states. Ask your "international law expert" if UNSC 678 was cited as one (of the many) UNSC resolutions that were the basis for UNSC 1441. UNSC 678 was the resolution that stated that "all necessary means" are authorized to be used to maintain international peace and stability. That's the only statement upon which Operation Desert Storm was launched. There was NO LANGUAGE that mandated that military force must be used or that the UNSC had directed that military force should be used. But it the same language upon which 1441 was passed. The fact that the UNSC had ALREADY lifted the prohibition of the use of force in 1991, and that Iraq had UTTERLY FAILED to satisfy all members of the UNSC that it was in compliance with its disarmament and cease fire obligations means that 1441 was, in effect, a return to 678. UNSC 678 is cited in UNSC 1441. Look it up. And if it weren't applicable, they wouldn't have included it, now would they? There didn't have to be any immediate threat of attack from Iraq in order to trigger the "all necessary means" language. All that was required (if even that) was a UNSC vote that stated Iraq was in Material Breach of the cease-fire accord and everything "defaults" back to UNSC 678. And material breach means that the cease-fire is effectively rendered null and void if the violating party does not take the necessary steps to rectify the breach of the cease-fire obligations to the satisfaction of the other signators. When only one side intends to keep to a cease-fire, that's called appeasement. It takes two sides to agree to a cease-fire, and if one of the parties opts to violate it, then the cease-fire is worthless and hostilities recommence. The same situation is in effect on the Korean Peninsula. There have been many instances when members states could have attacked N. Korea for its bellicose threats of war against the South or the US and Japan. Each of those could be construed as a violation of the cease-fire if it were deemed necessary to launch a pre-emptive strike in order to thwart a perceived danger of aggression from the North. None of this is illegal Geode.. And you know that. Because if it were not legal, Bush would have been strung up in front of an impeachment trial so fast it would make all of our heads spin. Now you can call it immoral.. unethical.. unreasonable.. But you can't call it illegal... And neither can the author of the article you cited. He's simply wrong in his interpretation. But then again.. he probably has a political axe to grind and certain no case at risk by his making such a sloppy analysis. Hawk

To: geode00 who wrote (191641)	7/14/2006 3:36:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Btw, note the date on that article you provided.. Oct, 2002 which is PRIOR to the UNSC UNANIMOUS passing of 1441 in November, 2002 that fulfilled the following requirement: Any claim that “material breach” of cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force. The minute UNSC 1441 passed and Iraq was declared in material breach of the cease-fire, member states could elect to default back to resolution 678. Because merely by stating that Iraq was in material breach of the cease-fire, the UNSC effectively reverted the situation back to open hostilities at the end of the alloted period assigned for Iraq to come into compliance. Bottom line.. Cease-fires only have two endings.. they either result in a full peace treaty, or they default back to hostilities. And I certainly didn't see anyone signing a peace treaty with Saddam... That should be so simple that even you can understand it... But I'm sure you'll find some kind of way avoid the burden of basic comprehension. After all, you've obviously dedicated your life to being an ignoramus. Hawk