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

To: Ilaine who wrote (169271)	6/9/2006 12:51:37 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

It was the first time in American history that we attacked a country which hadn't attacked us or any of our allies. We crossed a huge cultural, philosophical, legal, moral barrier to do so. And for many, there was just no way to get around that barrier on the rationale offered. So what you have goes far deeper than political differences- though I think that's where we hear most of the superficial scuffling. It's a profound difference in how we define ourselves and our place in the world. For people of conviction of both sides, these are not perceptions easily changed; they are core beliefs that make up who each of us is.

To: Ilaine who wrote (169271)	8/11/2006 4:48:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793914

Not Only did 1441 call for serious consequences. It also says "That the ceasefire granted under Resolution 687 was binding only insofar as Iraq was willing to hew to the terms of that ceasefire." and "That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687." en.wikisource.org The ceasefire ended the conflict authorized by Resolution 678 We really, truly, decided that we didn't need it. That much I can agree with. It was the first time in American history that we attacked a country which hadn't attacked us or any of our allies. They attacked Kuwait and then later violated the ceasefire agreement.