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 (119150)	11/11/2003 12:22:09 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

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. Yes... 100% certain Iraq had WMDs. He used them against his own people, remember. The question is whether all of those weapons he was supposed to declare in 1991 had been accounted for and properly destroyed (as well as all related documents). If you are asking whether, in 2002, the US was certain that Iraq possessed WMDs, I don't know of any statement where a US official could 100% assert this to the affirmative. But we had what's know as "preponderance of the evidence", if not "beyond a reasonable doubt" given the documents UNSCOM had uncovered. When you declare to the government that you have only made $100,000 for tax purposes, and they later discover an official document that states you made $133,000, you can be reasonably assured that if you can't prove it was a "typo", you're going to be indicted for tax evasion. Same principle applies with regard to Iraq's WMDs. 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. Then the problem you'll face is that NEVER has the UN DIRECTLY authorized the use of force to enforce binding Chapter VII UNSC resolutions. NEVER... All it has ever done is lift any prohibitions against using force by incorporating such language as "all necessary means".. This includes Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and any number of other situations were military force has been used under perceived UN permission. 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. And I would say that you're FOS. They finally provide the document disclosing that they lied about those 6,000 warheads, but never provided any accountability for them. That's not cooperation. I would like to see the UN charter modified and the veto power of the permanent members eliminated. Personally, I would like to see France's permanent membership revoked since it is now part of the EU. It's apparent that it's views do not properly refect the views of other EU members. Hawk