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: mistermj who wrote (216515)	2/6/2007 7:41:54 PM
From: Garden Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your comments are from David Kay, who as a US citizen would have had a bias for the US agenda. I would prefer the commentary from someone less biased like Hans Blix, who was the Head UN Inspector in charge who said: "I don't think the Europeans actually were saying we would never exclude use of armed force. They did not. They rather said they would like to have longer period of inspections. And we broke them off at three and a half months, which was a very short time. There was nothing in the resolution from 2003 that suggested that it should be so short." "So, if the Iraqis would have practiced cat and mouse in the spring of 2003 on inspectors, then I think the Europeans would have come along. There would have been an authorization of the Security Council and there would have been legitimacy for the action, which I think they now suffer from a lack of legitimacy." The US breached the terms of the resolution by not allowing what the resolution intended (inspections). As a result the invasion was illegal and simply opportunistic. The world community considers the US invasion as illegal, and it is logical that US would like to cover its Azz by stating otherwise. pbs.org