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: Vitas who wrote (10766)	2/20/2003 2:21:17 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Italy believes second resolution necessary. >>>Berlusconi has been one of President Bush's staunchest supporters in Europe. At the same time, he has been using diplomacy to try to unite Europe on Iraq and has insisted that a second U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing military force would be needed for any U.S.-led war against Baghdad.<<< newsday.com Vitas, I watched Security Council Ministers meetings, two of them. And except for Spain, all have called for a second resolution as being necessary and that the inspections should continue. I also watched Blair, on CSPAN, promise to his parliment that he'll deliver a second resolution. If a second resolution is not needed in order to provide full force of UN support, why then are they writing up a second resolution. By the way, Bush has also said Saddam kicked the inspectors out. Fact is, he didn't. Clinton said he was going to bomb, and they were withdrawn. Bush lies!

To: Vitas who wrote (10766)	2/20/2003 2:48:21 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Clearly no deadline is noted in UN 1441, and anyone without an agenda reading the UN document would agree. Vitas, you remind me of the hate bug in the Doctor Who Comic book who kept claiming "I hate everything!" At least that appears how you've postured yourself with me in this debate on whether to go to war in Iraq, or not. You seem to hate everything I write and say. So be it, I can't take your bum trip for you. That established, you're gonna hate the proof that's now in this pudding. For your enjoyment and intellectual persusion, please read and learn: >>>U.S. and British officials said Wednesday the short resolution, to be circulated later this week or early next week, would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N. obligations to completely eliminate its weapons of mass destruction -- a determination that can be used as legal justification for the use of military force.<<< "A determination that can be used as legal justification for the use of military force." Now, had UN 1441 explicitly stated this, well then I'd agree with you. You do understand that "serious consequences" means nothing like what's described at the beginning of this paragraph. >>>"It is time for the Security Council to consider a resolution that says Iraq is in material breach," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte<<< Whereas you, and Bush, are making a claim Iraq already is in material breach, that doesn't matter. What matters is the UN has to declare so. I'm surprised you couldn't understand this earlier. It was so plain and clear. newsday.com