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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3222)	1/10/2004 2:50:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

There was a Security Council resolution after that is it not? Not that I recall.. I recall Bush saying that 1441 was all that was required. After all, it "recalled" (noted at precedent) UNSC 678, which was the basis for Desert Storm in 1991. There was nothing more required from the UN. Now there was some discussion about the UN issuing another resolution but it did not include any enforcement of 1441 or "severe consequences" as stipulated in that resolution. All I recall it related to was an extension for Iraq to comply.. And you yourself have stated that Iraq was lying and essentially never planned to comply. We were just supposed to "read their minds". So yes.. you are wrong.. And furthermore, the UN has NEVER issued a resolution that specifically directed that military force be used to enforce its resolutions... NEVER!! All they have done is lift any prohibitions against using military force. But they have NEVER dictated that it be used.. And that's why it's ridiculous to think the UN would have ever violated that tradition and directed use of force in Iraq to enforce those resolutions. Hawk