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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (16761)	4/9/2003 11:27:02 AM
From: 4rthofjuly007	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

I do not think that 1441 or previous resolutions require the passing of additional resolutions in order for enforcement. The coalition is enforcing the existing resolutions. How is this "illegal"? P.S>> What do you think about the reactions of the Iraqi people today? Looks like Germany when The Wall came down.

To: zonder who wrote (16761)	4/9/2003 11:36:24 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

LOL! I don't care if Baghdad Bob signed the agreement with his fingers crossed. Iraq violated it. The US did not hand over complete legal authority nor the right to ignore the legal requirements of that document to the UN. The cease fire agreement was contingent on Iraqi completely disarming of ALL offensive weapons. That contingency has been violated for 12 long years, thus there is no cease fire in place. Got it? The Coalition of the willing resumed hostilities legally. Quit hoping & wishing. There ain't gonna be no war crime charges against Bush for this. No way, no how! See the following............ the-tech.mit.edu globalpolicy.org cnn.com sltrib.com