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: Noel de Leon who wrote (175743)	11/27/2005 11:35:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." Remaining "seized" of the matter means that the UN maintains its jurisdiction over the issue, not that it requires additional action because it's "pausing".. Mind you that no further UNSC resolution were issued between UNSC 678 and the initiation of hostilities on the 16 January, 1991 for Desert Storm. Yet, at the very bottom it states the same thing.. That the UNSC remains seized of the matter. Message 21921119 Resolution 1441. Nothing about the US going to war here. Which created the controversy over "serious consequences" language in that resolution. But mind you that the US representatives to the UN stated that by citing UNSC 678 as remaining relevant, and that thus, 1441 draws its authority FROM UNSC 678 (as well as the other resolutions), that "all necessary means" remained as authorized language. To claim OTHERWISE would have required the UN to WITHDRAW that language cited in UNSC 678. You don't just ignore it, or act like it no longer matters. What you do is DON'T CITE that particular resolution. But they did.. so the "all necessary means" language remain in force and completely applicable as it was in 1990. Hawk