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: boris_a who wrote (123914)	1/28/2004 5:06:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So we jump back to UNSC 1441. No "authorization" there, as we agreed in the beginning of our argument. Of course 1441 is pertinent. It's an amendment to every previous UNSC resolution to which it "recalls", one of which is UNSC 678. That's how resolutions work. They cite precedent and previous legal mandates related to the topic, in order to draw authority and jurisdiction for the new resolution. If 678 was not pertinent, or only pertinent to Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait, there would be no need to "recall" it in 1441. Thus, clearly it cannot be logically argued that 678 is not pertinent to 1441. All that can be argued is the definition of "severe consequences" and "all necessary means to restore peace and regional security". And both are subjective, intentionally so, in order to provide the maximum amount of flexibility in response by member states. Hawk