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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (980)	5/25/2007 5:50:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

It is an occupation. Quit fooling yourself. Geezus WR.. you're smarter than that.. How can an "occupied" country be recognized by the UN as a member state and have a posted UN ambassador? en.wikipedia.org Name me one other "occupied" country that has that status? (hint: Palestine isn't one of them because they only have non-member "observer" status). The US is in Iraq under UN authority, whether you agree or not. The UN has recognized the new Iraqi government, and accepted it's ambassador as a representative of Iraq to the UN. And I reiterate, because it would seem that a good many of you think you can arbitrarily invent new definitions for words, that the US still has troops posted in Germany and Japan, and neither of those nations would refer to themselves as "occupied". So please stop this semantical revisionism. Iraq is a duly elected government, put into power in a free and fair election in which over 1/2 of the Iraqi population participated. Why do you feel you have to speak for the Iraqi government? Let the IRAQI GOVERNMENT decide whether they are "occupied" or not. Because who the hell are we to make such a judgement? If they don't want us there, then let them pass a referendum demanding the withdrawal of UN authorized coalition forces. Hawk

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (980)	5/25/2007 7:59:23 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Its a UN authorized assistance mission: SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF MULTINATIONAL FORCE IN IRAQ UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2007, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1723 (2006) Also Calls for Review of Force by 15 June 2007, Earlier Termination of Mandate if Requested by Iraqi Government Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Security Council today extended the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year, deciding that it should be reviewed at the request of that country’s Government or no later than 15 June 2007. The Council also declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq. .... Annexed to the resolution was a letter containing Iraq’s request, as well as a letter from the United States Secretary of State, who confirmed the force’s readiness to continue to fulfil its mandate as set out in Security Council resolution 1546 (2004) and extended by resolution 1637 (2005). ..... un.org