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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (1068)	1/12/2003 10:12:40 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

UN thinks you are wrong, but that is obviously a minor matter. Happy you did not claim the No-FLy zones were included in a US resolution. Which coalition, btw?? Ilmarinen Btw, the poodle state is fighting to join the EMU, and maybe, who knows, the bambi-poodle himself has a point in what he claims he made the USA to do, pointing out that the EU needs a transatlantic poodle??

To: jlallen who wrote (1068)	1/12/2003 11:36:21 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

jlallen, why you still flyin' 'round that No Fly Zone? time.com It's clear that of the five Security Council members, Russia, China and France do not support the right for the US and Britain to impose a No Fly Zone. Let's recapitulate: Message 18431354 To which you replied: >>>" We'll have to disagree. I think it is clear that a No Fly Zone is authorized by the resolution. Why don't you ask the Kurds and Shiites if they are more or less protected by the No Fly Zones?"<<< Please answer this. If the US (or is it just you, jlallen?) insists that the No Fly Zone exists and is necessary in order to protect Kurds and Shiites, why then did the US deny the Kurds and Shiites military assistance when they requested same in 1991? And before you blame it on Clinton, please do check that 1991 date again.