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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (29514)	10/3/2003 8:17:09 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 89467

BWDIK... OK, let me add a little knowledge. Bush declared war on Iraq, and invaded, on the pretexts that 1) Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions. - er, the resolutions were for him to give up WMD... seems he had - he'd submitted to inspections - he was "reluctantly" giving sufficient co-operation (Blix) and of course we've not invaded Israel yet, either... 2) He was an imminent and real threat to world peace and/or the safety of the US/West - obviously, NOT. 1) The first might have made it a "legal" war. But turns out, it wasn't. 2)As it was, Iraq was as much a threat as Poland was to Nazi Germany... and this was the legal basis for Nuremburg. Invading someone because you "think" they might soon do something wrong is about as legal as killing someone because you think they might do something wrong. Honest? Look at the statements of Bush et al, and say, sincerely, that these were the lines of someone honest, telling the truth as best he knew it - or intelligent, able to grasp reality. One or both MUST be false. Do you think Bush could see the truth less, with all his intel, than ~40 people just from those active on SI who proclaimed why and how he was wrong?? Or do you think he did not wish to see reality? Or do you think he couldn't understand? As for the ethnic cleansing/genocide, well, no UN resolution on them anyway, so illegal. And as the terms are defined, none of the former, and none of the latter. He used gas against Kurds in one area, rebelling against his rule, 15 years ago, when he was our ALLY... I'm sure he'd have used a nice clean JDAM or MOAB if he'd any. Indiscriminate mass murder, sure. But no worse than Sharon, and arguably better than Pinochet or Somoza, so please don't feign concern... we didn't act against them - or even him. Then. So nope, still an illegal war. They hung Nazis for invading a country under false pretences, you know. "Regime change" isn't an excuse. It's a crime. It's called a war of aggression and it's the main international crime. And if you don't like that, pray China never decides to occupy Taiwan, or indeed Japan. Because they're "threatening", you know, and they have "WMD's"... why, even private citizens in Japan have sarin, imagine what their government must have...