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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (17871)	3/9/2003 1:01:44 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

>>>We're being hustled.<<< Funny.. .do you agree with the rest of Friedman's conclusion about Iraq?? This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice — a legitimate choice to preserve the credibility of the U.N., which Saddam has defied for 12 years, and to destroy his tyranny and replace it with a decent regime that could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world. That's the real case. Because I think he's spot on.... We need a strong UN.. A UN that commands the respect of the world's dictators, and helps to preserve international order, not encourage it by remaining impotent. But Friedman seems to miss the point as to why Bush HAS TO be willing to "go it alone".. After all, it is OUR SOLDIERS who will have to remain in place in those dusty @ss tents for the entire summer, not theirs. And ONLY because American and British soldiers are massing no Iraq's borders do we actually see Saddam grudgingly offering some "tidbits" in order to buy more time.. We cannot afford to wait for the UN, so we're telling them that we're threatening to render the UNSC irrelevant if they continue to use our soldiers as pawns in their continuing game of delay and distract so their own selfish economic agenda can be protected. In fact, the other UNSC permanent members have NO RIGHT to abdicate their responsibility to immediately enforce Resolution 1441 since it is self-evident that Saddam remain unwilling to disarm as if required.... Grudging disarmament in the face of impending invasion is NOT what 1441 was about, nor any of the other UN resolutions pertaining to disarming Saddam. They are about a deal the UN cut with Saddam after his army was thrown out of Kuwait. That deal stated we would cease hostilities in exchange for Saddam disarming his WMD programs and never again threatening his neighbors. He has NEVER complied with his end of the bargain, and that effectively nullifies it, and every resolution passed since, due to only one party (the UN) abiding by the agreement. Thus, Saddam's non-compliance re-instates the previous UNSC resolution 678 which requires restoring peace and international stability "by all necessary means"... And "all necessary means" meant military force then, and obviously can not be ruled out now... Hawk