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: GPS Info who wrote (184876)	4/13/2006 8:27:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What does this mean? Do you feel that none of these conventions or treaties represent international law? I would guess that you think that Hawk does believe “they’re the closest thing to international law, Yes/No? You seem to be responding to Hawkmoon’s comment: His response was essentially that he felt the UN was not legitimate and had no right to issue such resolutions. Based on Hawk's subsequent post. He was trying to assert that binding UN resolutions are more international law than other treaties because more countries have signed the UN Charter than have signed other international/multilateral agreements. That's silliness and a destraction. On legitimate: Hawk was referring to some post on a blog somewhere in which a poster was claimed that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. Hawk claimed that 1441 [the UN] was the authority and the poster then alleged that the UN didn't have the authority. Hawk than leaped the Grand Canyon and brought in the thoughts of other people who asserted UN authority wrt to Israel and then lumped all of that under the umbrella of liberals convoluted thinking. I objected that one can't take an opinion of one person and the opinion of some other person and assert convoluted thinking of a group. Do you believe that the UN has the authority to issue binding resolutions and call for military actions in this regard? Sure the UN has authority. That's what they are there for and that's what the signators of the UN Charter have agreed to. Has Hawk confused you with another of his detractors? I think Hawk has confused himself. He doesn't seem to have the ability to differentiate positions and people. Nor does he seem to have the ability to see contradictions among those that agree with him. I’ve haven’t see Hawk use 1441 as justification for the invasion... 1441 is the only "justification" that the US can hang their hats for the invasion of Iraq. Imminent threat would be another legal justification, but that's ludicrous. I believe that Hawk has used 1441 as the legal authority and justification for the invasion of Iraq. ...No, but cumulatively, his every action since the beginning of the Iran/Iraq war could very well be. Could you cherry pick his “good” actions since then? Even the French had a hard time doing this, but there’s gotta be something. Yes, the US aided Iraq, but that wouldn’t preclude the US from acting now, in my opinion. Is all this workable now? I truly don’t know, but that's another post. <g> Sure, Saddam wasn't cooperative as was South Africa was. And every act of compliance was like pulling teeth. IMO, Saddam destroyed his weapons and was trying to play a game where people would think he still had them even though he didn't. I think his main motivation was to have the Shia think he had them so the wouldn't overthrow the regime. Plus a testoserone problem; he wanted to maintain his sovereignty. It would be nice if Saddam would write an autobiography while he sits in his cell. I don't think the French ever tried, or were interested in commenting on Saddam's good actions. The French were interested in "Where's your proof that Iraq does have WMD." and every bit of Intel that the US passed to the UN turned up as a dry hole. I don’t know if there’s enough hypocrisy to go around the world a few times, but OK. There probably is, but I concern myself more with US hypocrisy than I do with other country's hypocrisy. I prefer that the US be "better" than it was 200 years ago and the US be better than it was a decade ago. I will point out that the US has supported tyrannical regimes, e.g., Pinocet, in the hope that we can learn a lesson and stop doing that. Not being in a position to judge whether or not Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon program, I can say with some confidence that our intelligence community has demonstrated their crap abilities at intelligence collection. If they can't predict that Hamas can win an election, why should I believe the claims that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon? Their sources are no better for Iran then they were for Iraq. Largely a bunch of Iranian defectors that say so. We're getting our intelligence from another group of Chalabis/Curveballs. They just have different names that we don't know yet. President Ahmadinejad is crazy; he's a lot like Bush. He whips up the populace with nationalism with a lot of religion on the side. Though I don't think that Ahmadinejad has claimed to have spoken with Allah. But he should send a thank you card to Bush. I don't believe that Ahmadinejad would be President if it wasn't for Bush. When Bush first took office, Iran was moderating. Even approaching the Bush Administration to play nice. Then Bush had to pull his Axis of Evil crap and push Iran to the right. I'm not sure that I've adequately addressed all your questions. I've tried without going into an overly extensive post. And I note that I've already started to go into tangeants, so I best stop here. jttmab