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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (434)	3/24/2003 12:50:10 PM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7832

Whatever! You read it your way, I disagree. As for the rest of your post, you are going into perceived threats ("imagined", more likely) and right of "defense". That is the basis for your stance. You don't believe there is a threat to the US therefore there shouldn't be an attack. My points were: (1) Sovereignty has NOTHING to do with right to attack and invade other countries (2) Yes, UN Charter is relevant when it is considering the invasion of another country. Because the US signed it. (1) I disagree. (2) The UN has failed miserably to live up to its own resolutions and Saddam has made Security Council look impotent for over 12 years. Have your read SCR 1441? Those resolutions already gave the US the right. Saddam could have easily prevented this by living up to a document that Iraq signed in 1991. The reality is you and I disagree across the spectrum of this issue. I am not happy that the US is engaged in this war. However, I absolutely believe that if the UN Sec Council doesn't back up its words this the action promised in those words, it will render itself irrelevant. If there is no follow through, what's to stop the next Saddam from complying with the UN?