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: Sun Tzu who wrote (185770)	4/27/2006 9:56:55 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

By Hawkies argument, we should invaded Israel a long time ago: economist.com They are in breech of more UN resolutions that Iraq, and WE are the World Police! The only thing that protects Israel from Chapter 7 resolutions is OUR UNSC veto.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (185770)	4/27/2006 10:23:23 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Now you see how partisan you are?! There is an old saying amongst lawyers, "If you can't argue the case, argue the law". You are speaking as if you are Bush's lawyer and trying to get him off on a technicality. I guess you were tired when you wrote this... Because the particular topic we were discussing was the "casus belli" that Bush administration had presented to the American people with regard to Iraq: siliconinvestor.com Message 22392749 And all I did was to CORRECTLY state that the only case the government of the United States (is that better than saying "Bush" or "Bush administration") had to present is that Iraq had failed to meet its obligations under the cease-fire and disarmament accord. And the unanimous passing of Resolution 1441 confirmed that. The world essentially told Saddam that is was time to end the BS and fully disclose and account for all missing weapons. And even as late as March, 2003, it was apparent that Saddam's regime remained in material breach (according to UNMOVIC's 175 page report on outstanding and unresolved issues). So yes... from a legal perspective, the case was pretty clear and it was made even more clear, POST-FACTO, that his regime NEVER intended to fully comply, and only was playing for time until it was able to reconstitute its capabilities. What YOU SEEM TO BE ARGUING is whether the case merited going to war. And of course, this was the position of the French, Russians, and Chinese as well. Does this material breach justify overthrowing Saddam's regime? However, I would assume that, unlike those countries, you didn't have significant economic interests with Saddam's regime that might influence your objectivity, right??.. ;0) And I would submit to you that we were already at war with Saddam. We had been ever since 1991. We were required to fly armed missions over Iraq for more than a decade due to his violations of the cease-fire and internal security actions which were destabilizing the region. We had his attempt to kill a former President (avoiding mentioning his name so you don't think I'm being partisan), threats to re-invade Kuwait. Increasingly hostile language suggesting an alliance with Jihadist elements. Payments to the families of suicide bombers.. Continued harboring of known terrorists, and corruption of the United Nations sanctions program. And post-facto information has confirmed that the Iraqi IIS had interaction with Al-Qai'da, and that this relationship was continuing to develop (and I contend still developing). We have disturbing information that Iraq that provides circumstantial evidence that Iraq may have been a facilitator of the 9/11 attack, to include the recruitment of suicide pilots. I've personally seen the accounting records for the creation of car bombs to be sent into Saudi Arabia (presumably to be used against that government). And I've seen the IIS's attempts to recruit Al-Qai'da members as agents (and not for the purpose of destroying that network.) I could go on.. but what's the point?? Some people believe that there is NOTHING that merits going to war. We all have to set our own threshold levels and apparently my thresholds are quite a bit lower than everyone elses.. Just as their tolerance for permitting brutal dictators undermine and corrupt international institutions, such as the UN, and international laws/treaties aimed at preserving stability and peace, is far higher than my own threshold for such behavior. Hawk