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: Hawkmoon who wrote (118954)	11/8/2003 9:54:46 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Ok fine.. But THEY (and you) brought up the point, NOT BUSH.. Wait a minute, don't put that one on me. It was you that brought up that point all on your own. You can click on the posts as well as I can. Bringing that up [imminent threat] was your idea and did so, IMO, as a criticism of the peaceniks. I think the context is quite clear on that. Further, it was not only the "peaceniks" that thought that Bush said there was an imminent threat, Ari Fliescher thought so as well. In line with your types of questions, why did Ari deliberately mislead the press into believing that Bush was suggesting the threat was imminent? What Bush opined was that Iraq was an EVENTUAL threat... Sometimes Bush got specific in his opining beyond "eventual". He claimed that the IAEA said that Iraq was 6 months away from getting a nuclear capability. [Of course, the IAEA never said that, but that's another matter.] Personnally, I consider that comment to be very suggestive of an imminent threat. No.. the US was NOT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING That's a surprise..... [to be continued...my wife wishes to sieze the PC] jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (118954)	11/11/2003 10:07:33 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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 Are you saying that the US did not claim that we were certain that Iraq had WMD? I'd be happy to provide links to the contrary if you need them. So I guess we in agreement that Saddam left 6,000 WMDs unaccounted for I agree with that. and became absolutely non-cooperative with the UN when they found evidence of his lying?? If you're talking about a specific day or week in which Iraq was "absolutely non-cooperative", there's some in which I would agree with. If you're saying that Iraq was "absolutely non-cooperative" in the weeks prior to the start of the war, I would not agree with that. I think the latter is more important than the former. 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? I'll make a more general statement that answers your question....There are times when the UN should use military means to enforce binding UN resolutions. Added to that, I'd say that one obstacle in the UN using military means when it might be appropriate is the veto power of the permanent members of the security council. I would like to see the UN charter modified and the veto power of the permanent members eliminated. My guess is that none of the 5 members would agree to that, but I don't know that a modification of the UN charter to accomplish that requires a vote of the security council. [legal question I have not looked into...and probably wouldn't waste the time, since I don't think that going to happen] jttmab