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 (195953)	8/8/2006 10:08:56 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You presume that the US can say that the UN was merely doing what it was told to do all along by the US I presume nothing of the sort. The US did put the UN label on a largely US operation, but the UN chose to accept having the UN label on the operation. It wasn't "told to" do so, in the sense of receiving orders from the US, it doesn't take orders from the US. if the UN decides to stop going along then then the US can simply step in and decide what to do on its own Its not a matter of stepping in. The Gulf War was an American plan from the beginning. It was also a clear case of aggression against Kuwait. No UN mandate is needed to respond to such action. The UN is not sovereign over the nations of the world and they don't need its approval, but in this case the UN charter gives approval. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"