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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spytrdr who wrote (369512)	3/11/2003 7:30:17 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

There are 56 other Muslim countries for Palestinians to live in. * * *

To: Spytrdr who wrote (369512)	3/11/2003 9:00:29 AM
From: gerard mangiardi	Respond to of 769667

Your view is naive. The total number of palistinians killed since intifada started is probably less than a thousand. Clinton had a great deal for the Palistinians but hamas and other radical elements killed it. Sharon is awful and should be a war criminal but if you were an Israeli citizen subject to continuous suicide bombings you might have voted for him too. This war we are in is a war for minds and weapons won't give us more than transient victories.

To: Spytrdr who wrote (369512)	3/11/2003 9:06:13 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 769667

Thats the Palestinians fault not USA or ISRAEL. Palestinians presently DO NOT HAVE A COUNTRY. They had their BEST CHANCE to get nearly everything they SAID they wanted with Clinton and the Previous Israeli PM. Instead, under Arafat, they rejected it. HAD they accepted it I am quite sure we would have been busy NATION BUILDING for them and they would now be heading toward a life of independence and sovereignity. I am sure we would have helped them with training their police force and all. So long as they accept HAMAS and other terrorists in the midst they are likely to lose more and more. Israel is not going to go away and Israel has proven they are not going to be scared into anything. Its a damn shame IMHO but you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. jdn

To: Spytrdr who wrote (369512)	3/11/2003 4:27:31 PM
From: Spytrdr	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 769667

Law Professors’ Statement Challenging US War Plans A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People President Bush maintains that Iraq’s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America’s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law. Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that — except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations. The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others.The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand. Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq. Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence. The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism. We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration’s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully. the-rule-of-law.com