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: GST who wrote (106086)	7/17/2003 4:22:25 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We had no legal basis for going to war on behalf of Kosovo. I would be curious, did you denounce Clinton? I supported him on that, considering the imminence of genocide sufficient reason to intervene.......

To: GST who wrote (106086)	7/18/2003 7:15:27 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No UN resolution. No legal basis for war. Rubbish. No UN resolution means no UN imprimatur for war. The UN is not a World Government. The usual procedure is that a country or countries invade another and the UN afterwards stamps on the result its Good House Keeping Seal of Approval. The reason for this is that the UN is particularly unsuited for dealing with situations such as Iraq, or countries in which crimes against humanity are perpetrated. Its Charter doesn't allow for it, its large membership of tyrannous governments also plays against it and it has no physical enforcement power. The UN is in place to protect governments or regimes of any sort , good or evil, not people. Neocon's formulation is exactly correct. The danger was always that when the sanctions were lifted Hussein would continue acting on his project of getting nukes and again try from a strengthened position to attack his neighbours. no link to al Qaida, on WMDs, no nukes, no uranium purchases, no nuke program, no offensive weapons delivery capability, in a country that was economically bankrup Your premises are specious. Iraq purchased uranium, was mining uranium, every important government in the world thought it had WMDs, it did have links to al Qaeda and helped it with its CW program in Afghanistan, it may have been technically bankrupt but the regime was getting lots of cash from the oil and it was certainly developing delivery capabiltiy. At end of GW1 Iraq was required to destroy its WMds and shut down their development programs. It did neither except when forced to and continued to hide its programs from the UN and US, (which was the proxy for the UN and negotiated the ceasefire). The WMDs were there and nobody is yet sure what happened to them.