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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (74162)2/15/2003 4:19:30 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi kumar_rangan; Re: "All thats needed is UNSC to say "yes its material breach"."

I agree with you here, but the logic is inescapable. If such a resolution passed, the US would have an excuse for war. Therefore, since most of the members of the UNSC want more inspections and are at least as good at logic as I am, I don't think that they will pass any such resolution.

-- Carl



To: kumar who wrote (74162)2/15/2003 11:01:40 AM
From: arun gera  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
>Respectfully disagree. 1441 lays out the terms of material breach. Iraq is now in material breach. All thats needed is UNSC to say "yes its material breach". If/when thats done, 1441 says serious consequences will follow. In my mind, "serious consequences = military action".>

What if UN does not conclude "Material Breach", and US attacks Iraq, would US be in breach of some UN Law?

Arun


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