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: stockman_scott who wrote (76382)	2/21/2003 4:53:15 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

<We also had very broad U.N. support for our military intervention in the first Gulf War.> I gather you think a UNSC vote of 15-0 for 1441 is not good enough ? Remember this was the 17th UN resolution, not the first. "Serious consequences" aka military, is a part of 1441. "Material Breach" of 1441 by Iraq is known. Only formality is for UNSC to formally say "yes material breach of 1441 has occurred". the serious consequences from 1441 then take over. EDIT : One could also say that 1441 was a formal recognition of material breach of all previous resolutions, and this was a resolution to provide Iraq with 1 last chance to prove that material breach had not occurred. Unfortunately it seems Iraq is not capitalizing on that opportunity.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (76382)	2/21/2003 5:08:19 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

scott, many of the same anti-war demonstrators were marching with their plackards then as now. The only countries opposing war with Iraq now are those who stand to lose from the outcome. Some of those same countries such as Russia opposed the first war. A fews differences are that: 1) Saddam was not within months of a nuclear weapon last time. 2) We were working on the first resolution rather than the 18th then 3) There was not at that time an Iraqi link with Al qaida nor had Al qaida posed an attack inside our borders. Moreover, you don't know our history very well. Ask Japan in the 1800s. Cuba, Haiti, Central America, Mexico... There is no precedent here... I guess the bottom line is that you are going to be dragged into this conflict kicking and screaming. A rhetorical question might be whether you would be anywhere near as opposed if the distracted Mr Clinton had taken us down this road years ago.