Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bilow who wrote (105362)	7/14/2003 10:42:44 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Actually it's more like shooting someone who you "think" is "still" a criminal, after you already whooped him. Does a criminal continue to be a criminal forever, even after he or she has been punished? Some people think that the war for the defense of Kuwait, and the drubbing of Iraq, gave us an unlimited mandate to come back for seconds. I know some people feel that way- but the UN, whose proceedings we "used" did not agree, and no one "invited" us in this time. I'd accept your analogy if it had something in it to account for the previous drubbing, and the fact that Saddam had paid once- and this time was only an "alleged" criminal- at least for the "crimes" we were using for our casus belli. The criminal was punished- we simply wanted to extra punish him out of existence. Many people in the world did not agree with the way the US tried to do that. I am one of those many people. It's a ways and means problem. I wouldn't have minded eventually punishing him, if we had a good reason (a new reason, a real reason), and the rest of the UN concurred.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next