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: Raymond Duray who wrote (24896)	6/18/2003 10:38:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

There you go again, re-writing history to satisfy your ideology. UNSC Resolution 1441 was most CLEARLY not a mandate for the U.S./UK to engage in a unilateral military aggression You're quite wrong. The UNSC didn't mandate the use of force (agression) that was utilized in Desert Storm. All they said was to use all necessary means to restore regional stability and peace in the region. The cease fire that ended Desert Storm was dependent upon Iraq remaining in compliance and NOT committing a "material breach" of the cease fire terms. Once such a material breach was committed, if not immediately and satisfactorily resolved, it would equate to a breach of the cease fire. In fact, even being in "material breach" was a violation of the cease fire. And I see that you don't wish to express the most basic disapproval of Saddam's regime. You likely feel that Iraq was "stable" under Saddam, just as Afghanistan was "stable" under the Taliban, right?? Why can't you just say you despise Saddam and what he inflicted upon the Iraqi people? Is that so hard to do? Hawk