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: neolib who wrote (228330)	4/23/2007 10:22:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

People who are lied to in order to get them to enter an agreement are not bound by the agreement. Just like people are being lied to about their being no serious consequences should we withdraw from Iraq. But in the case you bring up, the intelligence services of 15 different UNSC members "lied to them" to the point that they UNANIMOUSLY DECLARED SADDAM TO BE IN MATERIAL BREACH. But here's something else to consider regarding your analogy. If I enter into a binding contract based upon a lack of due diligence on my part, I'm still obligated to fulfill that contract. FDR and Churchill lied to the American people about their knowledge of Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor. The British had broken both the Japanese Naval and Diplomatic codes and HAD TO KNOW. Should the American people have been obligated to wage that war, had that information been discovered? 300,000 dead Americans might like to know why FDR and J. Edgar Hoover failed to listen to a German double agent who warned them he had been sent on a mission to investigate Pearl Harbor's defenses: en.wikipedia.org Truman knew, via messages from Mao, via India's government, that if American forces crossed the 38th parallel, it would result in the introduction of Chinese forces into combat. fmprc.gov.cn But 50,000 Americans died in that war. But with Iraq, the situation was different. We had a spy in Saddam's inner circle who asserted that Saddam has declared that he had hidden 500 tonnes of chemical warheads from UNSCOM inspection: en.wikipedia.org On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong. (but he was considered retroactively "right" about no nuclear program?.. Can't have it both ways). Hawk

To: neolib who wrote (228330)	4/24/2007 12:19:39 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

People who are lied to in order to get them to enter an agreement are not bound by the agreement. Something useful to think about before you set out to hoodwink others. If you proceed anyway, the results are your own mess. Nobody was lied to, and the leading Democrats who saw the intelligence evidence and who backed regime change in 1998, may I remind you, know it perfectly well. "We were lied to" is the mantra they have decided to adopt to avoid responsibility for their actions in voting for the war in 2002, or in ending or not ending it now.