Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: paul_philp who wrote (93957)	4/16/2003 5:17:35 PM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) of 281500

<<If you don't know by now you are not listening. Iraq attacks Kuwait, signs a peace treaty with the US, breaks the peace treaty for 12 years>> Peace treaty with US????? Help me here.....wouldn't we be breaking a peace treaty with Iraq by imposing a no-fly zone and routinely bombing targets in that zone for those 12 years?!?!? I think what you really want to say is non-compliance with UN resolutions but that would just kill you to have to do that <g> This was a pre-emptive strike....period. <<UN said 'Disarm or else' for 12 years. Did nothing. Irrelevant. UNSC said 'Disarm or face serious consequences'. Serious consequences delivered>> If the serious consequences was the war that was just waged and that was implied by 1441 why was there so much effort put into bringing a second resolution to the table to define "serious consequences"???? Play with the words whatever way you want Paul.....the fact Russia, Germany, China and France are openly opposed gives credence to the fact that 1441 cannot be seen as an approval by the UNSC. MON@funwithsemantics.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next