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 (176155)	11/28/2005 6:16:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

like we are going to get anywhere talking about this? I guess not.. Because I certainly can't see any International "order" in permitting intransigent and aggressivly hostile totalitarian states (who mind you, have utter contempt for democratic institutions such as the UN) create international DISORDER and lawlessness. That's probably where we disagree. I believe when the UNSC takes the steps to issue a binding resolution under Chapter VII, member states have an OBLIGATION to set aside their parochial interests and preserve the sancticty of the UN charter, by military force if necessary, against totalitarian despots.. Btw, where has the UN been with regard to that other Chapter VII binding resolution related to the cease fire on the Korean Peninsula? Why is Bush being told to have "bi-lateral" talks with Kim Jong Il when that is supposed to be a UN sponsored cease fire? Hawk