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: GST who wrote (138870)7/6/2004 2:47:07 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
Bush did not make a conventional self- defense argument, but argued that there was a lag in the recognition of the advanced state of lethality and delivery systems which made the demand that a nation wait for an imminent attack to respond irresponsible. His argument was that there was a growing threat that was not only regional, but directed at the West, and we could not wait until an attack was imminent to respond, we must destroy the capability. The legality of it, fragile as it was, hinged on the tenor of the Security Council demands that Saddam cooperate in disarmament, and the threats of grave consequences should he not be forthcoming. The United States, which was, in the end, the country that would enforce the Security Council resolutions, took it upon itself to determine the end of the inspection regime, and the time and place of invasion. Although not specifically authorized by the UN, it was also not specifically forbidden.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext