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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (616041)	9/1/2004 3:50:07 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

Why did Kerry and other democrats back the invasion. BTW Dipster every think of looking at the big picture?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (616041)	9/1/2004 3:56:21 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually, we do not know what they had, since they may very well be in Syria, but even granting your premise, we acted on the basis of intelligence that said they had stockpiles. Whether false or true, it was what we had. Even the Senate Committee has said that there WERE links between Saddam and Al- Qaida. What it said was that no collaboration could be documented, which is somewhat different, leaving the question open ended. You are wrong in saying that the humanitarian reasons were not mentioned among other reasons. The evil of the regime is mentioned as a reason in the State of the Union Address shortly before the invasion. The legal basis was the failure to comply with the conditions upon which hostilities had been terminated in the original Gulf War, and all Security Council resolutions pursuant to fulfilling the conditions. Specifically, Saddam was in material breech of terms with, for example, the program to increase missile range. Formally, he was in breach by not giving adequate account of stockpiles that were to have been eliminated. Additionally, he was obstructive to the inspectors, for example, by not providing free access to scientist. This is not to mention the abuse of the oil- for- food/medicine program, the diversion of funds, and the responsibility for ongoing deaths, especially among children, because of the diversions. All in all, if he did not fulfill the conditions under which hostilities were curtailed, we were within our rights to resume hostilities. On this theory, no further authorization from the UN was required, to enforce the resolutions.........