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: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (6966)	5/6/1999 4:01:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Gustave, you are right on that one....

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (6966)	5/6/1999 7:05:00 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

<<Even that Gulf War story was not such a clear-cut diplomatic win for the US: remember that it'd been a tough shot to get China not vetoing it! Actually, China didn't vote for the UN intervention in Kuwait, they abstained from voting instead. And that led some nit-picking international lawyers to claim that the US did not succeed in rallying a UNSC quorum to justify the Gulf War>> Yes Gustave! And this points once again to the counterproductivity of the UNSC, from purely political motives. How much safer and clear cut an example of aggression can be found than Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And yet one of the five permamanent members who have permanent veto power, abstained from voting! Is the UNSC's very purpose not in resolving aggression, with force when it is necessary? And yet here is one the five perm. members, with political motives, nearly hamstringing a clear cut UNSC resolution. It is a corrupted institution.