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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (36660)8/9/2002 11:28:27 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
The guy has violated the terms of the armistice. That, in itself, is justification UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, to
continue the war and overthrow him, or force him to comply with the terms of the original armistice.

Yeah, but the deal he made wasn't with us, it was with the UN. So we don't really have standing to complain if the UN doesn't want to.

Which is beside the point of whether or not the President can wage war without a declaration of Congress.

We did not go after Hitler until 1) Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; 2) Congress declared war on Japan; 3) Germany declared war on us.

If Saddam is playing by the rules, I don't see any point in playing the "what if?" game. The rules (international law) are there and they apply to all of us or there is no point in having rules at all.
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