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 (195723)	8/7/2006 4:09:04 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The UN did not invade Iraq -- that was a US-led action conducted outside the UN. The UN doesn't have an army, silly.. Nor should it. The UN's job is to promote peace, and insure that when war does occur, it is for the purpose of restoring a breach of the peace, as well as to promote regional stability (words paraphrased from UNSC 678).. The UN relies FULLY UPON ITS MEMBER STATES TO ENFORCE ITS BINDING (Chapter VII) RESOLUTIONS. Furthermore, when they add the term "all necessary means" to a UNSC resolution, it essentially opens up the authority to use military force to achieve the goal of the Chapter VII resolution. the coalition was astonishingly broad It was??!! Catch the clue train pal.. There were only between 19 and 30 (depending upon how one defines "contribution") coalition members signed participating in Desert Storm. en.wikipedia.org Operation: Iraqi Freedom had 49 official members of the coalition: The term "Coalition of the Willing" refers to the nations who supported (most of them not militarily) the United States position in the Iraq disarmament crisis and later the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation duties in Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006. The original list in March 2003 included 49 members, en.wikipedia.org In this case the gang included many countries that could easily be bought, and a few who thought they should go along with the US -- notably Britain. The UN however did NOT go along with this invasion. I would certainly agree that the French and Russians were bought and paid for by Saddam. The Oil for Food revelations POST-WAR clearly revealed this. As for the legitimacy of the UN resolutions, They CLEARLY, AND UNANIMOUSLY, PROCLAIMED Saddam to be in "MATERIAL BREACH" of UNSC 687, the cease-fire accord, and agreed to "severe consequences" should Iraq not comply. Now maybe the French, Russians, and Germans wanted another resolution defining what those "severe consequences" should be, but that was clearly not necessary. In fact, legally speaking, member states of the UN didn't actually need 1441 to enforce the cease-fire. Bush took a major political risk in returning to the UN "debating society" for yet another resolution that had already been stated and restated in previous ones. Now you say, well, since we invaded their country and destroyed their government, we should take the opportunity to create a democracy. Excuse me? Exactly WHO'S government are you referring to? Surely you're not suggesting that Saddam's regime represented the interests of the majority Shi'a, or the Kurds? It was a SUNNI dominated government. And Sunnis only represented some 20% of the Iraqi population. Hawk