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 (195796)	8/7/2006 5:10:05 PM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk let me get this straight. The US was enforcing a UN resolution. Right?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (195796)	8/7/2006 5:19:07 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Again.. the UN has NEVER specifically called for military forces to engage in war against another state. All it can do is lift the prohibition by the use of "all necessary means". And that was, as I stated, ALREADY CITED AND IMPLICIT in UNSC 1441. It doesn't matter. France negotiated in good faith on the language of 1441 with the specific intent of requiring a separate vote on military action. The US allowed them to believe that was accomplished with the language the US agreed to. It was only after 1441 was signed that the US claimed the right for military intervention. They deceived the French in order to get their vote on 1441. jttmab