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 : DON'T START THE WAR
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: PartyTime who wrote (2315)1/29/2003 2:27:15 PM
From: TimF   of 25898
 
If the UN were to back the move, the coalition will be just that and a far-reaching one,
one with substance. Presently, Bush has no substance to justify his war mongering stance.

Technically the UN already did back it. The UN supported the cease fire. The cease fire was violated. The cease fire thus ends. No more cease fire means a resumption of fire.

But assuming for the sake of argument that there is no UN provided justification for dealing with Saddam. So what?

If invading Iraq at this point is wrong, it would still be wrong even if the UN says it is ok. If it is right then it is right whatever the UN says. The main arguments that it is wrong are the belief in the idea of respecting Iraq's sovereignty and concern about death and destruction caused by the war. If the UN gave an 100% ok people would still die from the war and Iraq's sovereignty would still be infringed on. If Iraq has the right not to be invaded the UN can't take away that right. It is not sovereign over its member states.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News