Stop the War! 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.

Politics : Stop the War!

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Doug R who wrote (6062)	4/1/2003 3:49:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 21614

660 ONLY pertains to the Iraq/Kuwait matter insofar as it was demanded of Iraq to leave Kuwait. 1441 does not provide for war. Uh.. that's not quite right.. There was a cease fire which was signed by both sides at the end of the last war. It was not a peace treaty, but merely a truce declared which was dependent upon Saddam's compliance with cease fire requirements. That means the war was only "over" so long as the Saddam complied.. And those UN resolutions were ALL binding resolutions instructing Baghdad to comply with those cease fire terms... 1441 was the resolution that declared Saddam in "material breach" of his obligations under those cease fire terms, and provided him a limited window to comply. It was passed 15-0.. And since 1441 effectively states that Iraq has violated the terms of the cease fire, that means the cease fire is null and void. Not worth the paper it is written on, nor were any of the resolutions supposedly meant to compel Saddam's compliance. Which means that we default back to UNSC 678, which stated that "all necessary means" would be used to restore peace and international stability. And if we had authority to use military force then, we certainly have it now. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next