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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (60639)	10/2/2002 11:43:51 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As someone said on another thread, Iraq is a country that lost a war they started. They made a deal as part of their surrender to be inspected and abide by a host of other provisions in the agreement they signed. They then violated the agreement in every particular. So don't pretend it's just another sovereign country argument, as if Hussein is just an ordinary dictator tending to his own flock. Also, if you have evidence which contradicts intelligence reports about his development of weapons of mass destruction, please forward it to the proper authorities as soon as possible.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (60639)	10/4/2002 6:51:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Do you believe that the US has the right to invade any country in the world it wants to and kill the country's leader for our own reasons without recourse to international law or the Constitution? The Constitution has nothing to say about our conduct over seas only the mechanisms for deciding on going to war. Even here it is somewhat unclear. Congress declares war but can you fight without such a declaration? If yes is it in self defense only? In defense of our country AND its allies? Or can a more aggressive war without a declaration be ok? What if congress says its ok but doesn't declare war? Then you would be fighting without any such declaration. In any case I'm not sure you would drop your objection to taking out Saddam if congress says it is ok or even declares war on Iraq. As for international law it isn't real law. There is no international government placed above the government of the United States. But in any case as long as the original war against Iraq was not a violation of international law I don't see how resuming it when the case fire terms are broken is a violation. Even under international law there is no principle that says a war is only lawful if the UN authorizes it. Of course even if you agreed with all of that it wouldn't mean that the war was a good idea. That would be a much more extensive discussion. Tim