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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (169057)	6/8/2006 8:41:42 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

How fascinating you remember that. Please post the URL to this UN vote supporting (or "going along with") the invasion of Iraq. (make sure it isn't a post about resolution 1441, though, because that was not an authorization for invasion.)

To: John Carragher who wrote (169057)	6/8/2006 3:06:52 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793782

You remember correctly. Resolution 1441 was interpreted by the U.S. and its allies to mean they had permission to take the steps necessary to inflict "serious consequences" upon the regime in Iraq. And everyone knows it. M On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it. en.wikipedia.org