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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (6239)	4/1/2003 6:32:02 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

The 1441 resolution to renew the inspections process, under new terms, certainly would not have included Syria's positive vote. Does any pro-war advocate seriously believe that Syria would endorse an invasion of Iraq? And then the question: Did Syria know in full what it was voting on when it endorsed 1441? Fact of the matter is there is absolutely no legal justification, under intenrational law, for this war. There is every good reason for the argument to the contrary, that this war is very illegal and is certainly a war not endorsed by the United Nations. Heck, even the make-up of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, itself, is less than genuine. Would anyone like to name all of the nations which comprise this coalition? How many big ones are there?

To: jttmab who wrote (6239)	4/1/2003 7:32:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

1441 is "serious" consequences not "grave"... My Bad... As for what the security council should or should not decide.. the language AND INTENT of 1441 was pretty clear. Saddam is in material breach of his obligations, and must comply or face the use of military force.. Few, if any, UNSC members ever tried to claim that use of force was NOT the intent behind the term, "serious consequences".. And there was no language contained in 1441 that stated that the UN would have to vote again to initiate those "serious consequences".. In fact, 1441 stated this was the "final chance" for Saddam to comply. To vote again would be to nullify that language of "final chance" and suggest it was "the final chance before the last, I really mean it this time, don't make me angry, final chance..." Nope.. the intent was clear.. that Iraq was in material breach and had not cooperated in such a manner that it had brought itself into compliance. Hawk