SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TimF who wrote (196043)8/8/2006 10:13:42 AM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The unusually strong US/French resolution pertaining to the Lebanon war may be taking this statement into account too as israel was indeed attacked by hizbollah. Gulf war occurred because a member state was attacked by a rogue state. The precedent of allowing that to be successful is unacceptable to the UN. The Hizbolla attack should be treated the same way. Can you imagine a situation where kurwait in defending itself was villified for collateral damage while dealing with an aggressor? Certainly not, but not the same for israel.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"



To: TimF who wrote (196043)8/8/2006 11:41:19 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<The Gulf War was an American plan from the beginning> The US was a lead participant in the UN. But it was in the UN that the US played a role. The US itself did not act along nor did the US sign a cease fire. Your repeated attempts to make it seem otherwise put you into the general category of liar. The Us could not alone act to enforce a cease fire to which it was not a party - that is a fact. Lie if you must to promote your views. But that is what you are doing when you say it makes no difference because it was just the US acting all along anyway.