It was the Gulf War ceasefire.

As Kurt Schlichter wrote in his TownHall column yesterday, “With Hillary, I have exactly 0% chance of her implementing conservative policies. With Trump, I have a >0% chance of having him implement conservative policies. Advantage Trump.”

“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
We won’t be fooled again….” The Who

Trumpsters who will be disappointed.

He’s almost 70. As someone upthread stated, Churchill was Churchill before the events of WWII (for whatever that’s worth, based on the lively conversation that’s been had). He was an possessed of great personal courage, and there are stories in his biography of him demonstrating this as a very young man.

Trump is Trump. He’s not going to magically transform into some erudite, wise and courageous leader just by becoming President.

I’d love to hear from anyone who has any evidence to the contrary.

I think if someone has decided to vote for Trump, for whatever pragmatic reason whatsoever, that is something I can respect. But I worry about those who will vote in hope that he’s not who he is. I believe they are going to be really, really disappointed.

Among UNSCRs, you also need to sort which are Chapter VII resolutions and, among those, their enforcement authority and procedure.

UN authorization doesn’t supersede US sovereign authority. So it’s worth noting that for the enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, including the Gulf War ceasefire, the US law and policy were explicitly purposed, beginning with HW Bush’s initial reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 and the 1991 AUMF (PL 102-1) in January 1991, to enforce the UN mandates for Iraq pursuant to UNSCR 678.

Blert:

Don’t assume others don’t know history, in the broad brush, big picture, or that they don’t already know about failures in wartime by the men in charge. I don’t remember everything I’ve read, but I do remember the big things for a long time. At least here you acknowledge a few “brainstorms,” and correct leadership.

I’ve had the understanding that supporting USSR against Germany was not politically costly at the time in Great Brittan for Churchill.

%%%%%

Jumping to aid Stalin had MANY backbenchers gagging at the time.

1) The aid that Stalin wanted consisted of war goods that Britain needed for herself.

2) The aid transited German patrolled seas — and figured to run down Britain’s life line — its merchant marine.– when Britain was still very much on the ropes.

3) In party politics it was a staggering flip flop — as Stalin had been Hitler’s most important ally — and the source of all their troubles. Stalin triggered WWII in Europe — not Hitler.

Until Stalin threw in with Adolf, Hitler was boxed in economically.

Rubber
Oil
Met Coal
Nickel
Aluminum
Tungsten

Stalin destroyed the Western defense scheme // strategic international plan — by breaking Britain and France’s economic blockage of various critical war essentials.

Hitler was prevented from building up strategic reserves in rubber, oil, met coal and tungsten.

This diplomatic betrayal by Stalin was EPIC.

Most informed readers are still in the dark about the intense diplomacy prior to August 23, 1939 — between Russia, England and Poland inre a pact to go after Hitler — hammer and tongs.

Chamberlain was scheming up an alliance that would’ve co-joined Poland, Britain, France and the USSR in an anti-Hitler alliance.

It blew up// imploded because the Poles dared not trust Stalin with his demands for passage ( of the Red Army ) straight through Poland.

In his loopy brain, Stalin proposed that a massive swath of Poland be placed under RUSSIAN martial law — with all of the administrative conditions to match.

In so many words, Poland was to cede to Stalin total control of Poland across a front of, say 100 miles and more.

Stalin didn’t want to fight WITH the Poles – but as a sovereign military machine that need only take orders from Stalin — even while deployed within Poland.

Warsaw correctly figured that such a scheme would be the end of Poland.

blert @12:24,

UN resolutions against Israel are of farce.

They are never couched as UN Security Council Resolutions.

America or Britain always vetoes such frivolities.