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: SARMAN who wrote (195808)	8/7/2006 5:57:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Ok, you think you are wise, but I asked the same question earlier. No.. just better read than you are. At least I understand the difference between a UNSC resolution issued under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and one that is issued under Chapter VII. If you look at the current situation in Lebanon, there is NO binding UNSC resolution pertinent to either Lebanon, Israel, or Hizbullah. All that exists are a series of Chapter VI resolutions, in particular UNSC 1559, that apply, BUT ARE NOT BINDING. This is why Bush is refusing to agree to supporting a "make-shift" and temporary ceasefire that fails to implement a long-term and BINDING solution. Such a ceasefire agreement will require a Chapter VII binding resolution stating "all necessary means" should be applied to end the fighting there, as well as to restore Lebanese sovereignty and disarm Hizbullah. So the US uses the UN as it pleases. It can adhere to resolution when it sees fit. Right? Again.. go do some basic research.. All you have to do is google "UN Charter, Chapter VI, Chapter VII" and learn what the differences are between them. One would think that it might be time well invested rather than continually being made a fool of by people like myself. Hawk