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 (214730)	1/25/2007 2:32:48 PM
From: mistermj	Read Replies (2) of 281500

It was Saddam's obligation to prove he had destroyed the known quantities and document it, or produce it to inspectors. All under the spirit of cooperation with UN inspectors as mandated by the cease fire agreement from Gulf War I. Saddam was clearly not cooperating with inspectors , by Hans Blix own words, right up to a month before the invasion, and after a final warning and ultimatium were given we made the decision to invade. The war was legal, both according to US law, as well as International Law, (per the United Nations Charter and Iraq's violation of the UN cease fire agreement in 1991 UNSC resolution 687). In fact, UNSC resolution 1441, declaring Iraq in MATERIAL BREACH of that cease fire, was passed UNANIMOUSLY. So...as far as I'm concerned the administration had every right to be planning this course of action even before 9/11...and much more so afterward. It doesn't suggest some scheming war mongering cabal as much as it reveals a pragmatic bunch of hard boiled eggs that take America's interests and security very seriously with a real world viewpoint hardened by experience. (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfie)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next