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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (6225)	4/1/2003 4:46:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 21614

The UN did NOT authorize that the use of force would be carried out as an action outside the body of the UN. Uh.. actually the UN has NEVER authorized the use of force.. Never.. Not even during the Korean War (which was the first UN aponsored intervention)... It merely said "all means necessary" in 678.. And that's no different than saying "grave consequences" in 1441.. It was implied, as displayed by the build-up of US forces and lack of any resolution blocking the use of military action to enforce the requirements of the cease fire and disarmament. Btw, a Shiite cleric, who has been in contact with some of his fellow clerics in Karbala, as stated that the van of women and children who attempted to run a US checkpoint were, in fact, coerced to do so by Saddam's Fedayeen.. Told to run the checkpoint or face being killed right there by the Fedeyeen.. This from a Shiite Cleric... That's a powerful vote of confidence when they come out and defend the US, and those soldiers who were forced to shoot at innocent civilians. So I would say that the Baathists are more out of control than is the US.. Hawk

To: Doug R who wrote (6225)	4/1/2003 4:46:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

The UN did NOT authorize that the use of force would be carried out as an action outside the body of the UN. Uh.. actually the UN has NEVER authorized the use of force.. Never.. Not even during the Korean War (which was the first UN aponsored intervention)... It merely said "all means necessary" in 678.. And that's no different than saying "grave consequences" in 1441.. It was implied, as displayed by the build-up of US forces and lack of any resolution blocking the use of military action to enforce the requirements of the cease fire and disarmament. Btw, a Shiite cleric, who has been in contact with some of his fellow clerics in Karbala, as stated that the van of women and children who attempted to run a US checkpoint were, in fact, coerced to do so by Saddam's Fedayeen.. Told to run the checkpoint or face being killed right there by the Fedeyeen.. This from a Shiite Cleric... That's a powerful vote of confidence when they come out and defend the US, and those soldiers who were forced to shoot at innocent civilians. So I would say that the Baathists are more out of control, if not downright evil, than is the US.. I can't imagine even the Waffen SS engaging in such (maybe the camp guards) despicable behavior where there is no honor. Certainly no imperial Samurai would be dishonored so.. And the fates of both of those groups was far worse than you seem to desire for the Baathists.. Hawk