SI
SI
discoversearch

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: tejek who wrote (161044)2/14/2003 1:21:56 PM
From: jjayxxxx  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574679
 
As for what you said above....that's not what I said.

Nonsense. If you think Iraq is NOT in material breach, then you think they are in material compliance. Maybe I am wrong on this. Please explain or elaborate why you think they are not in material breach if that is your position. If it is not, then I guess we agree that they are in material breach?

Everybody on the UN Security Council thinks they are in material breach.

Help me understand your position, I really do want to know where you are coming from. I am pretty sure I am missing something.

TIA,

JJ



To: tejek who wrote (161044)2/14/2003 1:27:34 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574679
 
What I said is that the breaches to date are not significant enough to warrant
going to war.

Even if you accept that they don't justify going to war they would still be material breaches. They would violate an important part of the agreement. (rather then being only really minor technical violations that don't transgress against the spirit of the agreement or its main purposes).

Tim


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News