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 (124013)	1/30/2004 4:38:27 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

there was no automaticity under UNSC 678 either. 678 was an "authorization" by verbatim. Condition and time frame was clearly defined. All UNSC members agreed this being the authorization to use military force. Why should there be a discussion about an "automaticity"? "How that resolution was implemented to resolve the material breach was left to individual UNSC members." That would have been "automaticity". All members agreed that there no such thing. "it is clear that 1441 contained the SAME AUTHORITY as 678, as that resolution was specifically cited within it's text." If true, UNSC 687 (cited as well) and whole "no automaticity" issue would be just for fun. "But Chirac decided that, rather than abstaining, he was going to veto any second resolution." Wrong. France never opposed to "any second" resolution. They asked for more time to verify the WMD issue. They had every good reason not to believe the "clear evidence" presented by Powell. "Thus, if Chirac had the right to veto the enforcement of a resolution that it voted for in the first place, the US had the right to opt not to seek such a new resolution, citing the authority contained within 1441 and 678." The mere fact that the administration opted to seek a decisive, "second" resolution (authorization) is proof enough for absence of an authorization. The abuse of the term "no automaticity" ist just another dishonesty of this administration. But no special problem here. The list of most questionable "interpretation of truth" is endless with this administration.