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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (155119)	11/21/2002 11:41:22 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1579932

The UN has no provision for no fly zones. THis is an American and British unilateral thing. We are in effect violating their airspace. It;s not clear to me that we are not provoking them. While you are technically correct, there is no resolution stating that the UN will enforce the "no-fly" zones, the United States and Great Britain have done so pursuant to enforcement of Res. 688. It is obvious that you can't have resolution 688 to protect civilian populations then have no way of enforcing the resolution. So the no-fly zones, while not SPECIFICALLY authorized, are implicitly authorized by 688. As to whether they are being provoked, who cares? The question is whether we want the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world controlled by a dictator who is making every effort to increase his stockpile of WMD and develop nukes. It really is that simple; it would be (as it was in '98) grossly negligent for a president to allow Saddam to proceed with what he is doing, leaving our nation at great national security risk in the not-to-distant future.