Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) Message Board

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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)

AMZN 247.35

+0.4%

Jan 9 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: hueyone who wrote (149059)	10/21/2002 8:13:18 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) of 164684

Huey, the debate here, if you look beyond GST's ever-moving goal posts, was over whether further military action against Iraq in 1991 would have violated international law or was explicitly prohibited by UN resolution, not over whether we should or should not have marched to Baghdad. Since Powell, Schwarzkopf and Bush #41 decided against marching to Baghdad, it is not surprising that they would define the mission as having been accomplished. The question here was simply whether it would have been illegal and it seems abundantly clear, based on the UN charter, the actual UN resolutions that authorized "all necessary means", and established rights of nations (and given the failure of anyone here to show otherwise), that it would not have been illegal. Regards, Bob

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next