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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (24483)	5/28/2003 2:45:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

First you say that the U.S. wants democracy. Now, you say that the U.S. did not use violence or act criminally. That is a quite a bit of backtracking. What in the hell are you talking about??!! I never said the US did not use violence. OF COURSE WE DID!!! Because the USE OF LIMITED VIOLENCE AND CONTAINMENT was obtaining NO RESULTS in obtaining compliance to BINDING UNSC cease fire agreements from 1991... The UNSC had essentially abandoned the disarmament and inspection routines AFTER SADDAM KICKED THEM OUT!!! (violated the cease fire accord which legally justified a resumption of hostilities).. Hell, France wanted to lift the sanctions which would have opened the door to 100's of billions in oil contracts with Saddam's regime... And you know something.. There is NOTHING CRIMINAL about the use of force to maintain a binding legal judgement.. Cops doing LEGALLY all the time... It was Saddam who committed the first crime of invasion when it invaded Kuwait. Saddam was "permitted" to remain in power (to commit more crimes against the Iraqi people) ONLY so long as he fully and unconditionally complied with the cease fire accord. But Saddam was found in GRIEVOUS VIOLATION in 1995. He could have been invaded LEGALLY AT THAT TIME. And he could have been invaded in 1998 when he kicked out the inspectors. And the fact that we found two mobile biological labs (in military paint scheme), is sufficient to justify an invastion... When Tyrannical thugs, or corrupt "judges" (France and Russia on the UNSC), are able to call enforcement of international law "criminal", then it requires unilateral action of the global citizens to execute some "frontier justice"... And btw.. Did you realize that in many locales, it is a crime if you "fail to render assistance"?? You can be criminally prosecuted and punished for standing by and failing to render assistance to someone who is injured... I would say, given what we've seen from the mass graves, that we are all complicit in failing to render assistance, if not passively complicit in those crimes directly, permitting them to go on while doing nothing.. But international law is not the same as US Statutory law.. The only law that truly pertains to the world is the Law of the Jungle.. And that's what we followed in Iraq when other forms of legal enforcement failed to achieve results. We relied upon our being the biggest and most powerful nation on the planet to solve the problem.. Hawk