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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (148921)	10/18/2002 3:46:55 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Respond to of 164684

Nice try, professor. He didn't lie. He also crossed Iraq's borders bigtime.

To: GST who wrote (148921)	10/18/2002 3:56:33 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

So, by your standards, in WWII it was OK for the allies to bomb the crap out of German cities, but once they drove Hitler's army back to the pre-war borders, they had no right to march on to Berlin. The reality of international law is that, once Saddam invaded his peaceful neighbor, for no reason other than to conquer it and take what he wanted from it, Kuwait and anyone allied with them had every right to drive the Iraqi army not just back to their borders, but as far as it took for them to surrender unconditionally, even if that meant marching into Baghdad and taking Saddam prisoner. The UN has no authority to prevent a country from defending itself or asking help of allies in that defense. What happened in the gulf war was that Saddam agreed to a cease fire, which agreement imposed certain conditions and obligations on Iraq. He has violated those agreements. And as Bill asked already, do you think air strikes DO NOT constitute invasion of a state's territory? Sure was a lot of destruction in Iraq for a country that wasn't invaded.