Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction 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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sully- who wrote (42683)	12/6/2005 11:32:45 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) of 90947

"Well, you are back to the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement & all ensuing UN Resolutions then, aren't you?" These do not inform the question. They show an International consensus as to sanctions and follow-up. Facts show that SH violated sanctions. The consequences of violations are said to be "serious consequences". "Serious Consequences" was intended to indicate prophylactic and punitive measures from the world body in consensus. Even as a UN response it is not clear what EXACTLY is intended. It is something that would have been discussed, disputed, and examined by legal teams. The U.S. decided to impose their own "serious consequences" under the justification of self defense. Was there a need for self defense? I personally think there was over time. But was invasion the best way to defend American safety? Was the threat immediate enough to justify an act of war and an occupation? In order to answer this in the affirmative, the proponents of war would need to give reasonable proof that the safety of Americans was being threatened by SH. This would involve showing reasonable proof that SH had weapons or a war machine that threatened American safety and that this threat was so immediate that less intrusive measures than invasion and occupation would NOT be adequate to serve American safety issues. A huge part of this "reasonable grounds" would necessarily involve intent. After all--many countries other than Iraq have weaponry and power--and many of these are hostile to American interests. Many people think that invasion was the wrong way to go--even while appreciating that Iraq was hostile and a building threat... It is not a question to be answered by hot-heads and extremists. Sober minds will examine the issue at higher levels. I will try to keep the discussion clean from your nonsense and your red herrings and your straw men. And you? Well, I won't ask you to attempt to compose a paragraph of thought. So why don't you hunt down Hunt and a few others and cut and paste?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next