SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Maurice Winn who wrote (134475)5/26/2004 5:31:39 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
He isn't dead.

It would be ironic if the new Iraqi government tried him, found him not guilty, and released him, and let him start all over again.

But I think he's too old and weak to be that much of a threat anymore.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (134475)5/26/2004 5:34:02 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 281500
 
You keep tweaking us about "unsigning" agreements. The truth of the matter is that we had our fingers crossed behind our backs, we didn't really "sign" the agreements.

Well, actually, I am pulling your leg, sort of. The United States Senate ratifies treaties, and if they don't ratify them, then they were never binding.

Presidents get a lot of good publicity by signing treaties that the Senate promptly puts on the back burner, never to be seen again.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (134475)5/26/2004 9:32:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
It seems odd to me that people seem offended that Saddam didn't stick with the cease-fire agreement

I'm wasn't offended by that. I'm just offended a) that the proper 'or else' was not delivered to him and b) by all the ninies telling us how Iraq was a sovereign country we had no right to mess with.