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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (100798)	6/10/2003 6:27:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Bush is toast. No WMDs found, so absolutely no justification for a war that turned out to be immoral, unethical, illegal, impractical, and unwinnable. I guess it's my turn to BWWWWHHHHAAAAAA.... HAAAAA.....HAAAAA...HAAAA... (cough, hack, puuey...)... If anything, the downfall of Saddam's regime is NOT immoral in any sense. Just ask the relatives of those who had their family members assassinated by Saddam's regime. And it's not "illegal" for law enforcement actions to be carried out when all the evidence indicates a "crime" is being committed... If they don't find WMDs, then we spend years trying to figure out why Saddam spent so much effort being non-cooperative, and trying to hide documents and other stuff.. But it's hardly illegal... Recall, even Chirac stated that had they some 90 days more of intransigence on Iraq's part, France would have been more inclined to authorize military action. Thus, apparently even he was "convinced" (or playing for more time) that, given more time, he could get the inspectors to obtain Iraqi cooperation. And since the inspectors would have had no more luck than the current US forces have had, we'd still be back at SQUARE ONE, with the evidence indicating deception and non-cooperation by the Iraqis. That would have put us right back into the track of military action, except this time directed mandated by the UN, now wouldn't it?? The result then would be that the UN would have taken the UNPRECEDENTED step of authorizing the overthrow of a government. Would that be anymore legitimate? Where, in the UN charter, does it say the UN has the authority to exact regime change? Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (100798)	6/10/2003 8:36:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And it would seem that even Iran (hardly a friend of the US) believes Saddam possessed WMDs. And they live right next to Iraq, with the ability to infiltrate and support any host of human intelligence assets. Thus, even if no weapons are found, the FACT that most of the region, if not the world's, intelligence services believe Iraq possessed WMDs, along with UNSCOM/UNMOVIC's inability to certify Iraq has "weapons free" is sufficient probable cause for the invasion. Iran agrees Iraq hid arms By Stewart Stogel THE WASHINGTON TIMES NEW YORK — An Iranian government official with ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Tehran sides with the Americans on one big issue — Saddam Hussein's weapons. "Yes, we agree with the Americans. Our intelligence indicated that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction and was hiding them from the U.N.," the official said. The official, from the top ranks of Iran's cleric-led government, asked to remain anonymous amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran. He went on to say that the big question is, "What did the Iraqis do with these weapons?" Although Tehran does not know where these weapons may be today, there is a strong suspicion that some may have filtered onto local black markets. "We know other items, once under military control [such as broadcast transmission equipment], have found their way onto the black market," the official said. "We have people coming to Tehran from Baghdad with catalogs of items [stolen from the Iraqi government] offering them for sale." So far, the official said, no chemical, biological or related weapons have turned up. His remarks come amid criticism of the Bush administration and the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Both governments cited Iraq's deadly weapons as a reason for going to war. In Tehran yesterday, Iran said foreign pressure over its nuclear capabilities would backfire and harden Iran's position. Since its rapid conquest of Iraq, Washington has tightened the screws on neighboring Iran, which it accuses of sheltering al Qaeda fugitives, backing terrorism and developing nuclear weapons. "Excessive pressure on Iran would untie the hands of those who do not believe in dialogue," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. "Even those who favor constructive talks would not accept the language of force and threat." The United States and European Union are divided over Iran. The EU favors a policy of encouraging embattled reformers around President Mohammed Khatami, while Washington argues this is a waste of time because he has no real power to effect change. The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a report obtained by Reuters on Friday, accused Iran of not complying with safeguards to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and sent a team of inspectors to the country on Saturday. Fresh from war in Iraq over banned weapons, the United States described the report as "deeply troubling." Since the Iraq war, U.S. administration hawks have raised the specter of military action against Iran, but President Bush, who put Iran in an "axis of evil" with prewar Iraq and North Korea, has denied that he has plans to attack it. Even so, many in Iran suspect that the Islamic Republic may be next on a U.S. hit list of regimes to be overthrown. "We hope Iran's constructive cooperation with the agency and other countries makes the international community better aware of America's evil intentions," Mr. Asefi said. "We are always alert about America's policies ... but we have no doubt the Americans won't be deluded into mistaking Iran for Iraq. Such a mistake would be irreparable," he said. washtimes.com