Foreign Policy Discussion Thread Message Board

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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2354)	1/20/2003 9:19:30 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) of 15987

I can't understand how someone can claim to have backed the use of force to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait, and then not support forcing Saddam to comply with the terms that ended that war. Easy. One country invades another with no provocation and US defends them. I have no doubt this was more due to the fact that Kuwait has oil than the principles of sovereignty, but it does not matter, I supported the use of force to defend an invaded country. I find this a bit different than supporting the invasion of a sovereign country because its leader is "evil" and might have weapons. There are just too many people trying to play apologist for Saddam Hussein... claiming that while they despise him, they don't see a rationale for the US removing him from power.. When you put it that way, it feels like you are calling me an apologist for Saddam's actions (and I don't ever remember doing that), while I am only pointing out that the methods employed by Bush administration against him are (1) dangerous for world order (especially on legitimization of preemptive attacks) (2) counter-productive (if the aim is indeed safety and peace for the world, rather than the oil)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next