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: geode00 who wrote (175985)	11/28/2005 5:54:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) of 281500

No. Iraq invaded another country which they wouldn't have had Bush 41 bothered to preempt it. It also wouldn't have been an issue if the US hadn't consistently pushed to have Iraq be 'the bulwark' against Iran. Talk about trying to weasle your way out of facing facts. What RIGHT did ANY nation have to launch military actions against Iraq, except to enforce a UNSC resolution?? It was RIGHT THERE in Black and White.. The more you attempt to deny the plain facts, the more of a moron you make yourself out to be.. Don't you understand that? Remember when Bush got up in front of the world in his SOTU address and said: we must topple Saddam because we have to defend the UN and its resolution? Do you? I remember when Bush spoke before the UN and re-asserted his belief that failure by the UN to act in the face of Iraq's defiance of the UNSC risked making the the UN irrelevant. freerepublic.com Remember, this is in February, 2003. He also stated it PRIOR to UNSC 1441. globalpolicy.org With congressional authorization nearing for the use of force against Iraq, President George W. Bush returned his attention to the United Nations, demanding that it act quickly or makes itself "irrelevant." But there was no sign that Russian, Chinese and French opposition to the US-British approach was weakening. That left the UN Security Council sharply divided, and its role in the matter uncertain. Oh yeah, where in the UN resolution did it say to topple Saddam and create 'democracy' in Iraq at the cost of $300 billion and tens of thousands of lives? Where? One simple phrase in UNSC 678.. "All necessary means". If you're going to debate me, at least make a MINIMAL attempt to present some logical basis for your claims. Or at least do some research first. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next