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: JohnM who wrote (114384)	9/10/2003 1:56:31 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I was not discussing pre- emptive attack, I was addressing the claim that we had no evidence of capability to harm our cities. That is not true. The mere fact that there were tons of toxins unaccounted for that could have been used in a terrorist attack belies that claim. As for the attack: it was morally justified as the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was also justified as the final sanction for failing to account for WMDs in a timely manner. Since we were going to do the heavy lifting of enforcement, it was reasonable that we should set the timetable, instead of letting things drag out. Finally, we had reason to believe that Saddam had hostile intent against the Arabian peninsula and Israel, and was only prevented from acting upon it by our continued military presence in the region, our no- fly zones, and our embargo. Under the embargo, we permitted humanitarian sale of oil, to feed and provide medicine to Iraqis. Such money was being diverted to Saddam's use, and hundreds of thousands of children had died as a result. Continuing the embargo under such conditions was becoming morally untenable, but lifting it was dangerous. We needed a resolution. Pre- emption was a bit of a red herring, since the legal basis that the Administration invoked was the enforcement of UN resolutions...........