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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (1687)	7/15/2005 6:34:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541941

If the US pulled out the people of Iraq would have suffered even more under Saddam, and Iraq would not have been effectively contained. They would have lost Kuwait but there would have been nothing to enforce any degree of compliance with the inspection regime. Once the Iraqi army surrendered the U.S. should have pulled out. Surrender is a legal contract, just as are treaties. The surrender "contract" does not require any withdrawal of US forces from the area. It did however require Iraq to give the inspectors unimpeded access, which it did not do. In many ways the US wasn't "on war footing" even during the war. But even if we mobilized to the same extent that we did during WWII, that would not in any way be a violation of the letter of, or even the spirit of, the cease fire agreement. It also would not have been a violation of any American or international norm. Tim