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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (12349)	1/23/2004 8:55:03 AM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

>as it was the UN's resolutions that were breached (not those of the US), it was only the UN who could decide on the necessary course of action regarding the breach of its resolutions (not the US).< Absolutely, positively, not true under International Law.

To: zonder who wrote (12349)	1/23/2004 6:21:13 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 14610

Nobody is saying Iraq did not breach UN resolutions. But you seem to be saying that there shouldn't be any real repercussions.. Afterall, what more could we have done outside of military force? Impose economic sanctions? However, as it was the UN's resolutions that were breached (not those of the US), it was only the UN who could decide on the necessary course of action regarding the breach of its resolutions (not the US). And the UN Security Council clearly stated they did NOT sanction the invasion of Iraq. And I guess the US is not a member of the UN now? Nor is Britain, Poland, Spain.. etc?? It was FRANCE AND RUSSIA who couldn't decide whether they could mollify the other members of the UN into not busting up their cozy economic relationship with Saddam Hussein.. They stood to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in lucrative oil contracts in Iraq.. The only thing blocking the realization of such contracts was the economic sanctions, which they continuously sought to have lifted. The UNSC clearly had decided what to do as far back as 1991, and all the way up to 1441, when they cited UNSC 678 (the "authorization" for Desert Storm), and warned of serious consequences should Saddam not comply FULLY AND COMPLETE WITHIN 90 DAYS. If only I had a penny every time I told you this... Seriously, you are beginning to worry me. Just because you refuse to accept the facts doesn't mean that they don't exist. And just because Bush isn't willing to come right out and publicly harangue France and Russia for their selfish and obstructionist policies designed to protect their economic interests at the expense of US/UK treasure and manpower, doesn't mean that people like me can't do so.. Because it was the US/UK who provided NEARLY ALL the forces and money that went into "containing" Saddam Hussein for some 12 years... It sure as hell wasn't France or Russia. So maybe I'm just a bit resentful when I have either of those nations trying to tell our country that we have to maintain 150,000 of our troops in a bunch of desert cantonments until THEY decide what kind of action should be taken to resolve a material breach of the Desert Storm cease-fire accord. Pss on them Zonder.. And pss on anyone who thinks they have the right to treat US military personnel as their own personnel international pawns. Now you have to decide if you're own of those people.. Hawk