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 (3238)	1/10/2004 5:08:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 3959

I have said that when the US sought a further vote in the Security Council Chinu.. 1441 declared Iraq in material breach of the cease fire accord.. Normally belligerents don't require further authorization to re-initiate hostilities once the deadline for resolving that breach has passed and the breach remains. they should have abstained from the Iraqi attack until such time they could secure a majority, Chinu.. the UNSC voted to enact SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES, language FAR MORE ASSERTIVE than even UNSC 678 (which "authorized" Desert Storm). In 678, it was merely stated that all necessary means were authorized to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and to restore peace and regional stability. But the language of 1441, combined with the US congressional authorization to use force, it was implicit that those "serious consequences" meant the use of force to resolve the material breach. Alternatively, Bush should not have sought a second vote. No.. the French should have just shut their trap or agreed to abstain. Once they stated they would veto, a second vote was wholely unecessary... The only reason there was any discussion of a "second vote" was to delay and obfuscate the situation so that France could by more time for Saddam's regime, hoping to carry the inspections into last ummer, when it was unlikely the US would attack. And this has been a constant ploy by the French, who unilaterally attempted to declare in 1998 that Iraq had met it's obligations under the cease fire (only to have that nasty document showing the 6,000 unaccounted for WMDs throw a monkey wrench into it).. Bush should have done this... Bush should have done that... Blah, blah, blah... When will you end your inane criticism of Bush and place the blame where it squarely belongs.. Jacques Chirac. It was Chirac that should have stood his ground instead of voting for 1441. If he didn't believe Saddam was in material breach, he should have made his case and refused to bow to US pressure. But once 1441 was passed, he should have swallowed his pride, refused to bow to Saddam's extortion to tear up French oil contracts in Iraq, and agreed to do what was right.. Man.. I know you absolutely despise Bush... (for whatever reasons).. But I don't care who the man in office is.. This could have been Clinton or Gore and I STILL would have been supporting any decision not to bow to French extortion. Hawk