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: jttmab who wrote (196017)	8/8/2006 11:16:30 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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. You're right.. I guess if the US had a significant chunk of those $300 Billion in oil concessions/contracts with Saddam, there would be a lot of pressure upon Bush not to overthrow Saddam. But the US didn't, now did they? And it's pretty clear that those countries which DID have significant economic relations with Saddam's government were almost all against overthrowing him. Either way.. Even though they were bemoaning what would happen to the Iraqi people should Saddam be overthrown, I don't see a lot of them lining up to offer financial aid to them right now. 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. Are any of those approaches prohibited under the language of "all necessary means", or "severe consequences"?? Again.. you're trying to turn the UNSC into an organization that SPECIFIES THE MEANS by which it's member states enforce UNSC resolutions. And that's a VIOLATION OF A MEMBER STATE'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO CONTROL ITS FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. And while I'm sure you're an advocate of turning the UN/UNSC into a world government, and acknowleging its "global sovereignty" over the planet, I'm not quite ready to have the US surrender its sovereignty. I don't why this is so hard for you to understand. But we did get the oil. So what you're saying is that the US now controls Iraqi oil, and not the Iraqi government? That Iraq has turned over sovereign control of its natural resources to the United States, who will no receive all the revenues from it? Wow!! I guess I must have missed something.. Pray, tell us more!! 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. Well, maybe you didn't get the news, but there was NO MENTION of any consequences for Iraq if they didn't exit Kuwait in UNSC 678. It was pretty short and sweet, but powerful in its clarity. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, 1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so; 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; 3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution; 4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution; 5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. fas.org Hawk