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: briskit who wrote (164064)	6/11/2005 1:30:46 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

From the Downing Street Memo: "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change." Therein lies the problem: What was the basis for going to war? There has never been an adequate explanation, and new evidence strongly suggests that there was no legal justification for this war and little if no thought as to what to do in its aftermath. For those who truly care about the foreign policy of the United States, it is hard to conceive of a more important issue than that of the President of the United States concocting a legal "reason" to go to war. Regime change was not a legal basis for war.