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: zonder who wrote (16975)	5/8/2003 1:17:07 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

I said "you know it" because from our correspondence, you seemed to be the kind of person who would understand the merits of the argument in question. I answered with my disagreement in my prior post. You certainly are entitled to your opinion and I respect it. Aside from that, you say saving Iraqis from torture justified the invasion. However that was not the Bush argument. His argument for invasion was WMDs and that Iraq was a threat. It seems those "tons and tons" of WMDs are imaginary and obviously Iraq, who succumbed so quickly to the invasion, was no threat to a country it never even aggressed. I answered with my opinions and you have not responded so I will assume that there is no disagreement other than the WMD justification argument. With respect to the PR of the war, I have stated that I would have handled it differently so I don't think we have a disagreement other than in degree. Being a bottom line person, I'm very happy with the results and the elimination of one tyrant. I suspect that when the final history of this war is written, there will be historians that will document the case of WMD and, there will be those who will document that there were no WMD's. It's very early in the process. In a year from now, let's see where the evidence lies.

To: zonder who wrote (16975)	5/8/2003 2:08:23 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 21614

<font color=blue> You wrote:"His argument for invasion was WMDs and that Iraq was a threat."<font color=black> Not completely true. President Bush also used the latest UN resolution as a just reason to invade. America did the entire world a favor by getting rid of the brutal, threatening Saddam regime. <font color=green>: From the UN Resolution: "Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, ..."<font color=black> cnn.com

To: zonder who wrote (16975)	5/9/2003 7:00:28 AM
From: Vitas	Respond to of 21614

RE: Argument for invasion: 1. Blix: “When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items, if they exist.” Message 18906151 See the language of U.N. 1441. It is the lack of GOOD FAITH cooperation by Iraq that triggered the penalty phase of 1441. 2. Bush speech on 2/26/03: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq. The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them." Message 18634953 Saving the people of Iraq from torture was clearly an integral part of Bush's argument. 3. Your comment that Iraq was no threat is your naive opinion. If nothing else, Saddam's failure to comply with U.N. 1441 and his statements of defiance the very next day after the first major anti-war rally are direct evidence of ill intent and possible aggression which entitled the coalition to perform a thorough investigation. Just look at the evidence that has been uncovered in Iraq of France's criminal violations of U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf war. It is obvious France abused its veto power to cover up their illegal activity. The world will long remember France's deliberate implosion of the civilized world's efforts to resolve this crisis through diplomacy.