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 (195807)	8/8/2006 8:16:21 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Absolutely not. The French were the ones who started making waves in December, 2002, and January, 2003 demanding another resolution that would place the UNSC in the unprecedented position of specifying the use of military force to overthrow the government of another country. It might have had something to do with Saddam's threats to rescind over oil exploration contracts with French and Russian oil companies worth well over $300 Billion. You're muddling negotiating in good faith and possible motivation for a particular position. I could speculate that the US was motived for oil not enforcing a binding resolution. I think that Iraq is now the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the US. Not bad for an investment of $400B of debt. You claim that the US was enforcing UNSC 1441. Where are the WMD? They ain't there and they're not looking for them. Has the US accounted for the WMD? No, and they are not attempting to. Did 1441 call for regime change? No. Did 1441 call for an occupation of Iraq? No. Did 1441 call for the establishment of a democracy in Iraq? No. The US did not enforce 1441. But we did get the oil. If the UNSC had not desired a military threat in the language of UNSC 1441, they would not have included the term "severe consequences" or permitted the citation of UNSC 678 as a basis for declaring Iraq in material breach. Maybe you folks didn't get the news back here in the US. Over in England they were reporting that the insertion of the phrase "severe consequences" was insisted on by the French as the diplomatic softening of "all necessary means". I find diplomatic nuance to be rather annoying, but that's the way it is. We can argue the words all day long and never agree. But the intention of the French was clearly stated and stated frequently during the revisions of the draft 1441. The US backstabbed the French and the French knew it. And I'm confident that every member on the UNSC knew it as well. The issue of whether the war was illegal is moot. No country or international body will ever put the US on trial for an illegal Iraq war. They know it can not be enforced. The deception by the US is however lasting. The UNSC members know that the US [at least under this Administration] is not to be trusted. You can't trust their intel and you can't trust them to negotiate in good faith. Pondering this old stuff jogged some neural pathways. When was the last time we heard the Administration use the phrase: "Losing is not an option."? If losing is not an option, we've tossed it over to the Iraqis to win or lose. I wonder if the Iraqi government uses the phrase over there. jttmab