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: Brumar89 who wrote (58116)	11/21/2002 12:33:43 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nothing happened as a result, possibly because the concept of "preemptive attack" hadn't been cooked up yet by the current US administration. If it were now, maybe one would decide to nuke the other to kingdom come because they have WMDs? Who knows. If you look closely at the quote you are referring to, you will see that it is from someone else's post. Maybe you would like to ask your question to him, who will no doubt be in a position to give you an answer on legalities of the UN charter.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (58116)	11/21/2002 5:54:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

guess if that is true then the threats of force between India and Pakistan a year or so ago were impermisable. This is just an example of a conflict I'm picking for illustration purposes. OK, let's say the threats of nuclear war India and Pakistan (not to mention their troops occasionally shooting at one another along the border) violated the UN charter. What happened as a result? Who did or is going to do anything about it? Why just last year's standoff, Brumar? India and Pakistan have fought three wars since 1948, all equally "impermissable". Who did anything about those?