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 (176150)	11/28/2005 9:31:25 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"HOWEVER, let's NOT try and claim that Bush didn't obtain a majority in the UNSC, even if some of those states decided to back military action out of common knowledge that France and Russia were already stating they were planning on exercising their permanent veto." My point is that a UNSC majority is not sufficient reason to go to war and then claim that it was justified under 687 and 1441. It requires no vetoes as well. By the way implicit in that sentence is no vetoes from the permanent members as none of the others have veto rights. The rest of your post is interesting even though there are some grammatical errors which lead me to wonder who really wrote the article.