Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36183)	8/6/2002 8:37:42 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm referring to the terms of the Gulf War armistice, which did not say, "ok we've beaten you up enough, you're free to go," but which imposed certain harsh conditions on the Iraqi regime -- no fly zones, weapons inspections, sanctions -- upon pain of resuming the war. I can look up the exact terms if you'd like, but is there any question that Saddam has repudiated the armistice terms? My impression is that those agreements are UN agreements, not US agreements. If so, attacking on that basis would require a UN vote, resolution, something, which the Bush folk would abhor. Do you know one way or the other?