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: redfish who wrote (125876)	3/10/2004 5:15:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The very concept of an "illegal war" requires us to surrender our sovereignty. Hey, you just noticed?

To: redfish who wrote (125876)	3/10/2004 6:16:09 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An illegal war requires somebody else to surrender their sovereignty. We are not alone in the world. We have no special right to invade other countries. This is not a matter of our sovereignty -- it is a matter of respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

To: redfish who wrote (125876)	3/11/2004 8:50:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The very concept of an "illegal war" requires us to surrender our sovereignty. Which is why it was foolish for France and Russia to seek to have the UNSC be the organization that directed war be waged against Iraq.. As I've OFTEN repeated, even in UNSC 678 they did not mandate that military action be the means by which its binding resolutions were enforced.. They merely lifted the prohibitions against using military force by authorizing "all means". And while France might want the UNSC to become sovereign over its government, most Americans would rather not have Kofi Annan dictating when and where US forces should be deployed. Hawk