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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17646)	6/14/2005 8:48:41 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 20773

There is no evidence that Saddam's antiaircraft fired at the British planes. There is only the administration's word that those events occurred, and we know what that is worth. TP

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17646)	6/15/2005 8:48:55 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

If someone shoots at me, I think I have the right to shoot back, regardless of whether my attacker is a poor shot. I agree with that. I'll even go further and say it's a legal act of defense when Iraq turned on their radars and we shot those installations prior to being fired at. While I am by no means an expert [or even close to being a novice] in international law it doesn't take a lot of effort to find out that self defense under international law is a matter of "immediate and proportional response". It wouldn't be immediate if you waited 6 years to respond and it wouldn't be proportional if your response to turning on radar would be a laydown of tactical nukes over Iraq. International law isn't far from the Old Testament, sic biblical law. You might consider refereshing your memory with Ex. 21:23-24; Lev. 24:18-20; and Deut. 19:21. [Which is a lot more stringent than the New Testament perspective of Matthew 5:38-42 or Luke 6:28-31]. Of course recognizing that Iraq had no reasonable chance of hitting US aircraft, the US could have looked at situation and reacted accordingly as described in the Old Testament, see Psalms 7:5. So there are some moral choices for you, compliance with International law, the Old Testament or the New Testament. None of which supports an invasion of Iraq based on Iraqi anti-aircraft shooting at US aircraft in the no-fly zone. So by justifying the invasion of Iraq as you have, you reject international law, and the moral principles expressed by the Old Testament and the New Testament. Then there's Article VI of the US Constitution... that stuff about treaties being the law of the land crap. So all in all in one fell swoop of retribution you've violated International Law, the Founding Fathers and the requirements of the US Constitution, the Old Testament and the New Testament. Thumbs up. I would expect nothing else from a conservative. jttmab