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 (109679)	8/3/2003 6:47:07 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"The Bush Administration declared a new doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war -- regime change. Unilateral US invasion of sovereign nations in the absence of a threat --" Care to share credible links to Senior Bush Administration officials official documents &/or speeches where, in their own words, they clearly describe what you have alleged? TIA

To: GST who wrote (109679)	8/4/2003 11:20:15 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, the Czech Republic, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries supported us in Iraq. So you are wrong to say that no other major power went along with us, or that it was entirely go it alone. Everyone, including the French, took seriously that Saddam was a threat, the only disagreement was over how to handle it. So, again, you are wrong in saying that we invaded in the "absence of a threat". The French, by announcing their intention to veto the resolution that would have authorized us to use force, preempted the vote in the Security Council. Thus, you are wrong that the UN "did not reject the the US", in the sense that we were willing to take a final vote, and the French made it irrelevant. Even Hans Blix has conceded that the only reason that Saddam cooperated even as much as he did, which was not great, was the pressure Washington was putting on him. As usual, we were expected to do the heavy lifting, that is, provide money, men, and materiel to enforce containment, without having more of a say about how our resources were used. The UN, and a couple of our principal allies, were entirely at fault for going the extra mile to thwart us, even though they relied upon us in the first place to secure the situation.........