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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (1234)	3/12/2003 9:49:04 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7936

If one country attacks another country, does a third party have the right to go to war against the attacker? Yes. Who has Iraq just invaded? If that war is ended by a cease fire agreement, and the agreement is violated by the original attacker how does the resumption of the conflict violate the sovereignty of the original attacker? I suppose a lawyer might answer yes... depends on the meaning of 'is'. What's the violation? Unproven accusations of WMD are an incredibly spurious pretext - and even if they were included in the cf (I don't know... were they?) they aren't relevant to the casus belli or to the ceasefire, and I don't believe our proposed response is reasonable or proportionate... MOABs and tactical nukes?? Invasion of Kuwait would be full and instant justification. Why do you believe the invasion of Iraq is suddenly, urgently needed or justified - and on which of the 4-5 pretexts claimed by Bush over the last 9 months? I don't remember hearing about cf violations at first, it was al Qaeda... remember? Axis of Evil, aiding terrorists, he tried to kill my daddy... And what afterwards, after heavens-know how many deaths? oops, 'collateral damage? - no, killing those who can't respoond, can't defend themselves is called murder... whether you crash a plane into a building or launch 2000 cruise missiles. Think Iraq's going to end up any better off than Afghanistan, afterwards? We're not doing this to enforce the UN resolution and it's fatuous to pretend we are. It's been made very clear, repeatedly by Rumsfeld and others, that the US will do WTF it likes and bomb anyone who says no - because it can. It'll seek a UN figleaf because it's slowly percolating through that being the most hated nation on earth isn't really that desirable, but I don't believe the Likudniks really care so long as they have their way. Maybe they were bullied at school, and learnt the wrong lesson, or something... <edit>oh, don't lets forget the new lessons in how to get and keep friends - bribe them, or threaten to remove their aid and/or block their trade... nice. Real 'honourable'. A stance to be proud of there. Make the world a better place, yep. Don't expect anyone else in the world to like you for this stance, and don't try to pretend to us that you're doing it for any moral and respectable ground... I truly don't know what the reason is, I assume the urgency now is to save face. But I do think this is a despicable reason for declarng war, against a crushed enemy that basically can't fight back. And if you can't see the degradation in that... then I do pity you, even as I despise you. But I reserve true pity those good and honourable citizens of the US, past and present, the few I know and the many I don't, whose honour is so besmirched. I'll say a little prayer for the rest, that they and theirs shall reap what they so, and learn the lesson of their gloating, bullying and evil behaviour... I don't know how soon, but they will and I just hope they don't drag us all down with them from that evil pride. Reply as you will... I don't understand you, and really don't care to.