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: epicure who wrote (175969)	11/27/2005 2:11:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So you are trying to argue that the war, which the UN security council obviously did not agree with, was somehow "for" the UN, or under it's auspices. No more than you are trying to argue that the opposition of France, Russia, and China somehow represents the overall will and opinion of the UNSC... I TOLD you.. Bush had 9 of 15 UNSC votes lined up to support the proposed authorization to use force that France and Russia were trying to shove down the Security Council's throat (because they were obviously going to use their permanent veto to stop it). Bush had a majority then, and he had UNANIMOUS ACCORD under 1441 that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of a CEASE FIRE accord. So why not stop trying to translate French and Russian foreign economic conflicts of interest with Iraq and their willingness to utilize their permanent veto, as "representing the will of the UNSC". It represented THEIR WILL, not that of the UNSC. Hawk