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: Bald Eagle who wrote (8452)	4/6/2003 12:27:17 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

>>>I don't think many are "pro war" except as a very last resort, which is what this war is.<<< Bald Eagle, this is anything but a war of "last resort." To the contrary. The war on Iraq is a preemptive war only, an action deemed illegal, in accordance with the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1946: >>>In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the "necessity'' for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbours. "To initiate a war of aggression,'' said the tribunal's judgment, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.''<<< argument.independent.co.uk Saddam should have first been brought to a world court on charges of crimes against humanity. Most likely, given what we know, he would have been convicted. Then, the people of Iraq, with the whole world in support, would have a just cause to rise against him. It's wrong for America to assume it can go and liberate people who've not asked to be liberated. It's wrong for America to assume it can destroy a government when the governments of the nations surrounding it have not called for that government's destruction. It's wrong for a UN member to invade another UN member without the support of the UN to the action.