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: willcousa who wrote (24679)	6/6/2003 11:24:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

Not only that - the liberals in this country were adamant against any further action in Iraq. They didn't want to do anything at all.. It seems to me that the fact that Iraq was under UN sanctions, and was required to maintain conditions that preserved security and stability in the region, we had some onus to prevent the massacre of the Shiites, even if they were in rebellion. And we certainly had an onus to prevent Saddam from draining the marshes in the region.. But there are obviously considerable "issues" that are borderline with regard to being within the UN's jurisdiction. But the fact that Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement from 1991, the UN effectively had the right to take whatever action it chose, whenever it chose to do so.. But no one but the US/UK had the balls to do anything...even if ineffective. But at least that's more than the other nations of the UN bothered to do. If anything, they deliberately aided and abetted perpetuating Saddam's tyranny. Hawk