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: jttmab who wrote (118952)	11/8/2003 9:11:03 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq was never an imminent threat and the peaceniks were correct on that point. Ok fine.. But THEY (and you) brought up the point, NOT BUSH.. Iraq being an imminent threat was NEVER a condition of the authorization to use force. What Bush opined was that Iraq was an EVENTUAL threat, so why should we wait for such a threat to manifest itself. Why should such a regime, which has left 6,000 WMDs unaccounted for, be permitted to continue disrupting the regional power structure. Whether I do or don't understand the difference between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC has no bearing on whether you ignored the questions. But it certainly has a bearing on your competence in debating the subject, or your grasp on history.. If the US was 100% certain that there were WMD in Iraq, why didn't they accept Sadam's offer to let in US Intelligence into Iraq to show them where they were? No.. the US was NOT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING, except that Saddam HAD LIED, and not complied. The reason we agreed to a cease-fire after Desert Storm was under the condition that meet certain terms as set out by the UNSC. Thus, the onus is NOT upon the US to prove or disprove the status of Iraq's WMD inventory and programs. That onus was on Saddam and his Baathist regime. UNSCOM found an incriminating document, the Iraqis confiscated it and refused further cooperation with the inspections, and for 5 years no inspections took place in Iraq while sanctions were maintained and the Iraqi people suffered... And then 9/11 occurred and put a whole new perspective on the threat that existed out there. So I guess we in agreement that Saddam left 6,000 WMDs unaccounted for, and became absolutely non-cooperative with the UN when they found evidence of his lying?? Well, I answered one of your questions, please answer one of mine (and a follow up).. And do you believe the UN should never engage in regime change to enforce its binding UNSC resolutions against intransigent dictators in order to free an oppressed society? If not, what alternative would you have offered? Hawk