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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (699536)	2/17/2013 11:54:51 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574493

Flies love SHIT.

To: longnshort who wrote (699536)	2/17/2013 12:08:23 PM
From: steve harris	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574493

Carl said "treaty". The 1991 surrender agreement wasn't no treaty.

To: longnshort who wrote (699536)	2/17/2013 4:38:52 PM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574493

LOL!! I am amused when assoles like Carlito claim to be righties.....

To: longnshort who wrote (699536)	2/18/2013 2:30:57 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574493

I see Carl took a leave of absence. Or is that what we call "pulled a CJ"?

To: longnshort who wrote (699536)	2/18/2013 8:23:46 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574493

Hi longnshort; Re: "In early March of 1991, Iraq agreed to terms of the cease-fire. These included a no fly zone over southern and northern Iraq." If such a cease-fire agreement exists, then post a link to it. I don't go to blog posts on the internet. If there's some portion of a blog post that you think justifies your position, then copy it into the thread. The only agreement I've found is Resolution 687, UN, which you can find in various places. The only text regarding demilitarization doesn't mention aircraft specifically. And the zone is quite small, compared to the no fly zones that the US declared: Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace; treasury.gov -- Carl P.S. To bring this discussion to a conclusion in your favor, it might be nice if you found a copy of the Safwan Accord or Safwan Agreement and posted it. I haven't found one. For example, I don't know if the Iraqi government signed it or if only a few generals signed it. But if the accord includes partitioning Iraq into "no fly" zones that include the majority of the surface area of the country, why do you think the US hasn't made the agreement public? Do you think that US officials are too stupid to make public agreements that support their legal position? Do you think that the British lawyers who told their government that there was little legal support for invading Iraq are also stupid? No, I think there's a reason the Safwan accord is still secret. It's because it doesn't have what you (or the Bush administration) want in it.