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: GST who wrote (191650)	7/14/2006 10:21:57 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The UN was established to rein in the murderous arrogance of one state invading and occupying another state Which is EXACTLY what occurred in 1991 which ended NOT in a peace treaty, but in a cease-fire. A cease-fire, dependent upon the compliance of the established terms of disarmament by Saddam's government in Iraq. Iraq was voted unanimously by the UNSC to be in Material Breach of that cease-fire obligation via UNSC 1441 and given a set period of time to resolve the outstanding issues. The time elapsed, UNMOVIC inspectors reported that Iraq had not fully complied in the time alloted, and it was then up to the individual members of the UN to determine what the next course of action should be in the face of the material breach of the cease fire. Btw, nothing in 1441 stated that the UNSC must, once again, vote to determine what kind of response would be utilized to enforce their resolutions. Were it intended that the UNSC had decided to reserve the right to determine what "necessary means" would be necessary, or whether additional time would be alloted for compliance, it would have stated it in 1441. But it didn't. So give it up.. The war was legal under international law. What you're actually arguing is whether the UN Charter should be altered to actually provide it the power to determine when, or if, military force should be one of the options utilized to enforce its binding resolutions. in the case of Iraq the failure of the UN was its failure to stop us from exercising naked aggression against Iraq and the Iraqi people. I guess it all depends upon how you define the "Iraqi people". You must be referring only to the Iraqi Sunnis, who made up most of the Ba'thist government. Because the Shi'as and Kurds certainly were ALREADY FEELING the "naked agression of Saddam's regime against their peoples. And both ethnicities FAR OUTNUMBER the Sunnis. But the UN did little to nothing to prevent to prevent this naked aggression against them, despite its obligation to prevent Iraq from being a threat to peace and stability in the region. The reality in Iraq is that due to Saddam's intransigence, NO ONE knew whether he possessed WMDs, and if so, what his intentions were. WE DO KNOW that he NEVER gave up his goal of expanionism and seeking to dominate other Arab countries in the region. And that intent alone posed a risk to regional stability and an unknown variable to fulfilling the promise of 678 and 687, namely the restoration of peace in the region. He certainly had no intent on signing a full-fledged peace treaty with Kuwait. All he wanted to do was have the sanctions removed so that he could, once again, pursue his imperialistic ambitions. Btw, nowhere in your "analysis" do you detail the CONTINUING NAKED AGGRESSION against the Iraqi people by the remnants of Saddam's regime and Islamo-Fascist elements. After all, it's not the Coalition forces who are committing suicide bombings against innocent civilians and blowing up Mosques. Hawk