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: Hawkmoon who wrote (22376)	3/17/2003 5:42:03 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

>>> That would be quite Ironic.. Some countries sending forces under NO UN MANDATE to prevent another member state from enforcing one of the UN's binding resolutions?<<< First, the US will not be enforcing a UN binding resolution. In the absence of a clear and legal definition of "serious consequences," it is not the US role to make that determination. It is within the purview of the UN Security Council which itself articulated that wording. Secondly, Iraq was determined in breach and order to make a declaration. It is this particular declaration which is currently being inspected by the UN Security Council's assigned, US-assigned--weapons inspectors. Once those inspectors have completed their task and have submitted a final report is submitted, reports which current operate within a prescribed procedure grandfathered as precedent from previous resolutions, then it becomes the ultimate responsibility of the UN Security Council to make a determination as to whether or not "serious consequences" are required. And if the Security Council, not the US, deem that "serious consequences" are required in order to fulfill the terms and conditions of UN 1441, it is the express responsibility of the UN Security Council, not its member the US, to determine exactly what those "serious consequences" shall be and in what form to invoke them. At this point only, would it become prudent to ask for the assistance of the US. There is nothing in the language that states that the US shall make the decision. Anyone adovacting this does so on fruitless, perhaps opportunistic, grounds.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (22376)	3/17/2003 6:38:23 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

You said to PartyTime: "That would be quite Ironic.. Some countries sending forces under NO UN MANDATE to prevent another member state from enforcing one of the UN's binding resolutions??" LMAO!!! I think that PartyTime is losing it. He is against war, but he is in favor of the UN going to war against America, to stop America from enforcing a UN binding resolution. Perhaps PartyTime is quickly writing many notes, just to keep this threat alive. It might not survive too much longer. We need another thread titled: "Rounding up all the protestor traitors, to ship them over to rebuild Iraq, after the war." It would do the protestors some good, to have to work hard for a change.