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: GST who wrote (154457)	12/20/2004 10:16:47 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

The legal cause of action was the failure to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, such compliance having been a condition of the original cease fire. The UN did not dispute that there were breaches, or that compliance was not forthcoming. It disputed whether a new resolution were needed authorizing force, a matter which turns on whether you interpret matters as a resumption of hostilities, or as a new sequence of actions. In addition, there were several purposes articulated in going to war. One was the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal regime. Although not as urgent as some humanitarian crises, it represented a ongoing problem that had overtones of genocide, due to the ethnic division involved. It is virtually certain that without our ongoing protection, for example, through no fly zones, that the treatment of Zurds and the Shi'ia would have been even more brutal. So, there is a question of whether we adhered carefully enough to international standards, but there is no question of acting as a "thug"...........

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next