SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (169127)6/8/2006 3:39:37 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793757
 
I'd challenge anyone to come up with outright illegalities on his or his administration's part.

Congress authorized the use of force, which is all that the United States Constitution requires.

The US has always taken the position that we have the right to preserve our own security and the security of our allies, regardless of UN resolutions. (See, e.g., Israel.)

Thus, no "illegality" from the US point of view.

But no express UN authorization, which is a violation of UN rules.

But we don't need no stinking UN rules. We're the biggest and the baddest honcho on the block, and nobody can stand in our way.



To: Neeka who wrote (169127)6/8/2006 4:16:41 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793757
 
I have no idea why you are going all ad hominemy on this (whiners complaining about nasty bad admin). It seems such an easy correction. The UN did not approve the war. Period. We did it on our own.
No one said anything about illegalities, or Saddam not deserving it, or nasty bad Bush.
It puzzles me that emotions can so get in the way of a fairly simple fact check.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News