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 (105941)	7/18/2003 10:54:51 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not arguing in defense of Bush, but rather for specific justifications of the war. Having sufficient justification for the war to keep it from being an unjust war, doesn't mean Bush did a good or even honest job arguing for it, nor does it mean that the war was in our best interests. They are three different issues even if they are somewhat entangled. And for that matter, it was the job of the UN (which had responsibility for the matter) to decide when a "material breech" occurred The US fought the first war, and primarily determined the cease fire rules. Other countries pitched in but primarily the war was the cease fire was with us, we decided if and when the war would end and under what circumstances. As a party to the war and to the cease fire we don't need a UN decision about if a breech occurred. Tim