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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (2618)	4/8/1999 1:15:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

The Security Council did vote on a resolution condemning the action, which was defeated...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (2618)	4/8/1999 2:34:00 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

<<Not true. The US intentionally and deliberately decided not to seek UN approval of the bombing campaign, as Bush did in Iraq with such success. Clinton knew what the answer would be; he can't bully the UN the way he can bully NATO.>> LOL! Are you aware of who the permanent members of the Security Council are? It practically is NATO: US Britain France Russia China NATO did not go to the UN because Russia and China would have immediately vetoed any resolution. Why would Russia and China do this, especially in light of the fact that Milo probably would have backed down without Russian support? Because Russia and China both have a vested interest in defeating such a measure and in condemning NATO. Politics. Once again I say, Russia could have prevented this before it started, simply by browbeating Milo. They did not, they would have vetoed any SC resolution, and they have profited greatly.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (2618)	4/8/1999 8:28:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

What was the Security Council votes calling for a secession of the bombing? About 8-2 with one abstention or something like that. That's what the poster when he said "effectively" -- of course, the U.S., French, and British votes were golden veto ballots, and the motion could have never won, just as a U.S. motion to support the bombing would have been vetoed by Russia and China. I think US was right not even to ask, so embarrassing to ask and be vetoed and then have to do it anyway. You may recall that the UN intervention in Korea was a fluke. The USSR was boycotting the Security Council, and this permitted approval and support of the US intervention. Later, when Russia came back, it was unable to reverse the intervention, and the General Assembly passed the Uniting for Peace resolution that effectively bypassed the Security Council.