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: geode00 who wrote (173670)	10/30/2005 6:00:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Impeachment, for the umpteenth time, is a POLITICAL ACTION NOT A LEGAL ONE. The House of Representatives, where impeachment is conducted, is controlled by the Republicans who will not, even after all the lies, impeach their own lying President and Vice President. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Senate under the control of the Democrats when they passed the "Authorization to Use Force" back in October, 2002? That was even before the UN voted unanimously to pass UNSC 1441, which declared Iraq in material breach of a BINDING CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT. So where is the illegality in upholding international law? Isn't it more illegal NOT to uphold the law because various nations have parochial interests they don't want to upset (like oil for food bribes and oil field concessions that were promised to France and Russian?).. Isn't THEIR CORRUPTION and subversion DIRECTLY responsible for creating the conditions where military force was required?? Would it be illegal if you prevented the police from arresting a convicted violent criminal (out on parole) for violating the terms of his parole, merely because you and he do "business" together? Because that's what Saddam was.. A violent criminal "indicted and CONVICTED" by international law in 1991 of invading another country (Kuwait) and "paroled" under the conditions of UNSC 687. Are you saying we should not have upheld the law? And why are you against upholding international law? Hawk