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: Hawkmoon who wrote (118171)	10/31/2003 12:23:32 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that the language tends to support your point. However, I do think it is fair to note that the consequence of the resolution was known and intended, i.e. Bush would use force to repel Iraq from Kuwait and the Saudi border. Still, it was our operation, even with their blessing......

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (118171)	10/31/2003 1:56:17 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Not true. "all necessary means" embraces the use of force. "Serious consequences" does not. Nobody involved in this process has any doubt as to the difference. Thousands of hours were spent by the US lobbying for the language "all necessary means" in 1441, and the US did not get that language in the resolution because it would be authorization to use force -- and the UNSC was not prepared to authorize force in 1441. That is why the phrase "all necessary means" does not appear in 1441. You might have been confused, and are still confused -- but the people involved in this diplomatic process were 100% clear.