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: Hawkmoon who wrote (176243)	11/30/2005 8:11:48 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

We were talking about UNSC backed action contra unilateral action. Not about what was found after the fact. I'm surprised that these documents to which you refer form so little a part of the debate about Iraq. No where have I said that Saddam was planning to comply. All the evidence said that: 1) He was planning to resume his WMD programs. That comes from his previous behaviour. 2) He had complied with the destruction of his WMD even though the evidence was not sufficiently documented. Your interpretation of the text in 12 and 13 is different than mine. It is the difference between UNSC backed action and unilateral action. I didn't publish the paragraph 12 and 13 texts since I figured you had read them and that others who were interested in a civil dialogue would check the source. But that is not the problem. The problem is that Bush and company are anti UN and as such acted in a way to weaken that organization. I believe that the UN or a modified form of the UN is the only form of super national organization which can, over the long term, moderate the war like tendencies in nations. Especially when nations act to serve their own interests(oil) at a severe cost to other nations.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next