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: jttmab who wrote (195805)	8/7/2006 5:24:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

France negotiated in good faith on the language of 1441 with the specific intent of requiring a separate vote on military action. Absolutely not. The French were the ones who started making waves in December, 2002, and January, 2003 demanding another resolution that would place the UNSC in the unprecedented position of specifying the use of military force to overthrow the government of another country. It might have had something to do with Saddam's threats to rescind over oil exploration contracts with French and Russian oil companies worth well over $300 Billion. The UNSC has no role in specifying anything. Its roll is to leave the MEANS of enforcing a UN binding resolution to its member states. By authorizing "all necessary means", the UNSC essentially "washes its hands" of restraining member states from relying upon military force. If the UNSC had not desired a military threat in the language of UNSC 1441, they would not have included the term "severe consequences" or permitted the citation of UNSC 678 as a basis for declaring Iraq in material breach. Hawk