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: Hawkmoon who wrote (45634)	9/21/2002 2:39:29 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Better yet..just have those nations who laid them pay compensation to civilian victims, as well as the cost of having them removed.. Let's see if THAT kind of treaty would have as much support around the world... I suppose we didn't lay any mines in Vietnam; we had South Vietnam do it? You would prefer to have a treaty that doesn't have support; rather than join a treaty that 130 or so countries do support. Ok. How about this approach to the mideast....the text that Bush sent to Congress cites enforcing UN resolutions and concludes with the phrase, "to restore peace and security in the region". [Everyone that believes that invading Iraq will restore peace and security to the region, stand up and give three cheers, Hoo-ra, Hoo-ra, Hoo-ra] Personally, I've believed for a long time that the UN should be using military means to enforce it's resolutions. Let's have the UN use military means to enforce ALL UN resolutions in the region. I'm willing to bet that the US would veto that resolution before the paper has cooled from the laser printer. jttmab