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: GPS Info who wrote (184831)	4/8/2006 9:35:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Inherently, this resolution represents the will of the UN - including its non-democratically elected members. This would be the crux of my point. Thank you!! It's nice when others understand what I'm talking about... I had an email exchange with some who posted to another Blogsite. Apparently a well spoken and intellectual individual, except that he called the Coalition invasion illegal and stated that Bush should be tried by the International War Crimes tribunal.. In the exchange I tried to explain to him that the binding resolutions of the UNSC ARE the closest thing we have to International Law and cited 1441 and its preceding resolutions upon which it was based (678 and 687). His response was essentially that he felt the UN was not legitmate and had no right to issue such resolutions.. This, my friend, is the convoluted thinking that liberals bring to any discussion of Iraq... But by god, when it comes to Israel and the series of non-binding resolutions aimed at conflict resolution and eventual last peace between that country and other hostile nations it remains at a state of war with, they're all over the place citing the UN's authority. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next