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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (437)	3/24/2003 2:44:34 PM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7833

Well, "I disagree" is not enough, when you are talking about a legal issue like "sovereignty", whose definition is pretty clear - it is about internal affairs, not foreign affairs such as invading another country. Well, its going to have do. Legal this, legal that - so the world is going to punish the US and more to the point, Bush, as a criminal? Not likely. The entire judicial system is based on "disagreements of a legal nature." The only time this issue will be settled is after the combat has ended. Yes I have and no it does not. The words "invasion" and "war" do not exist in that resolution (singular). If there was an automatic recourse to war, the UN Security Council, who, incidentally, MADE that resolution, would have known about it. They obviously don't. That resolution reaffirmed the previous resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. The cease fire of the Gulf War was contingent on those previous resolutions. From 1441: Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Its fairly straight-forward. Message 18669671