Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (39295)	8/21/2002 5:17:36 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

Demonstrating this "connection" is the straw man. The Bush doctrine is that we will act preemptively to stop those who would harm the interests of the US. Given Saddam's failure to adhere to the armistice, the potshots he takes at US overflights, his well documented support for terror, his continuing attempts to acquire WMD and his location astride the bulk of the globe's oil reserves, I think this is more than sufficient justification to take him out whether or not he is ever firmly linked to Al Quaeda. It is against global and US interests to allow a madman to sit where Saddma does...

To: Ilaine who wrote (39295)	8/21/2002 5:30:09 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The trouble with "connecting the dots" is that there are enough of them out there to draw any picture you want, if you get to pick and choose. Compared to, say, Syria or Iran, Saddam looks like sort of a lonely guy on the terrorist front.

To: Ilaine who wrote (39295)	8/21/2002 6:46:16 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>How much of a connection would it take to satisfy you? Do you need proof that Saddam was behind 9/11 or would you be satisfied with proof that Saddam aided and abetted Al Qaeda in general, or even indirectly? How strong does the evidence need to be?> If this is the arguement, then US must be stopping the support of ISI to Al-Quaeda and related groups in Kashmir. The ISI links to Al Quaeda are well known. On the Kashmir front, US claims that they have no control. Arun

To: Ilaine who wrote (39295)	8/21/2002 9:12:53 PM
From: jcky	Respond to of 281500

How much of a connection would it take to satisfy you? Do you need proof that Saddam was behind 9/11 or would you be satisfied with proof that Saddam aided and abetted Al Qaeda in general, or even indirectly? That is a very good question. It is also a gray area where I think many reasonable people may have many different opinions. But I believe, under the mandate passed by Congress following 9/11, the president may only exercise the military use of force to attack Iraq if it can be shown Saddam willingly aided, abetted, or harbored al-Qaida in any manner (financial support, intelligence sharing, logistic training, weapons exchange, etc.). There has to be a direct link between Saddam and al-Qaida. Any connection between Saddam and 9/11 would be gravy, in my humble opinion. But I suspect this administration, due to their diplomatically challenged persona and a variety of other reasons, would only be able to garner an international coalition if a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 is established. In summary, a direct link between Saddam and al-Qaida authorizes the president to act unilaterally and pre-emptively strike Iraq under the resolution passed by Congress. A direct connection between Saddam and 9/11 would probably legitimize our policy of regime change in Iraq to the eyes of the international community and illicit a multilateral response. However, the wisdom of the president's pre-emptive strike policy is a whole new ball game. frwebgate.access.gpo.gov Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>> Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>> SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. [[Page 115 STAT. 225]] (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Approved September 18, 2001. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001): Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001): Sept. 18, Presidential statement.