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: paul_philp who wrote (93957)	4/16/2003 5:03:05 PM
From: jimbopost	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

According to Tom Campbell, the 1991 war never ended. If one accepts his argument, how can the US be accused of a pre-emptive war. Message 18718638 "… - … The U.N. resolutions granting authority to the United States and our allies to wage war against Iraq were not repealed. They remain in force for the sake of enforcing the promises Saddam Hussein made to end the 1991 War. Furthermore, from that time to this, hostilities have continued non-stop. The no-fly zones, patrolled by America and Britain, have seen military action in unbroken succession, under prime ministers Major and Blair, under presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush. … - …"

To: paul_philp who wrote (93957)	4/16/2003 5:17:35 PM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<If you don't know by now you are not listening. Iraq attacks Kuwait, signs a peace treaty with the US, breaks the peace treaty for 12 years>> Peace treaty with US????? Help me here.....wouldn't we be breaking a peace treaty with Iraq by imposing a no-fly zone and routinely bombing targets in that zone for those 12 years?!?!? I think what you really want to say is non-compliance with UN resolutions but that would just kill you to have to do that <g> This was a pre-emptive strike....period. <<UN said 'Disarm or else' for 12 years. Did nothing. Irrelevant. UNSC said 'Disarm or face serious consequences'. Serious consequences delivered>> If the serious consequences was the war that was just waged and that was implied by 1441 why was there so much effort put into bringing a second resolution to the table to define "serious consequences"???? Play with the words whatever way you want Paul.....the fact Russia, Germany, China and France are openly opposed gives credence to the fact that 1441 cannot be seen as an approval by the UNSC. MON@funwithsemantics.com