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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (19026)	4/3/2008 10:11:30 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

We should think about it...and not simply pretend we have no voice or concerns because troops are in the field. Not my point. I agree. It is the nature of the anti-Bush, anti-American rhetoric which is out of bounds....Policy discussion is always useful....however, no one has a monopoly on the truth..... J.

To: pompsander who wrote (19026)	4/4/2008 1:28:41 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

"It would appear the Country will get a fairly clear referendum on Iraq in November." Also December 31st., when the existing UN authorization for the occupation expires unless re-extended, or a legal agreement is reached with the 'sovereign nation' of Iraq totally apart from the United Nations. Note that the original UN authorization has already been extended ONCE, (it expired last December), but was possibly illegally extended this last time since it was never submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for them to approve --- as the Iraqi Constitution requires, and as Maliki promised the Parliament that he would do... but then broke his word to them by going behind their back & passing the new agreement to the Security Council directly from his office... while asserting that the request was 'legally approved by Iraq'... which seems to be directly contradicted by their Constitution. The two big problems seem to be: 1) The UN Security Council resolution (extended once already): Russia has said that they will not vote to extend it any more. Other Security council members have similar problems, believing it should be put up to the Iraqis to legally and formally agree to a continuation of the American occupation. The Security Council cannot approve anything unless it's unanimous.... 2) The Iraqi Parliament (clearly tasked --- as our Senate is --- by the Constitution as being responsible for ratifying all 'foreign treaties') has clearly stated that they will NOT approve an agreement authorizing occupation past this December 31st. unless is has a clear end-date on it. They are considered especially firm in this as their feelings are rather bruised by Maliki spitting on their Constitutional prerogatives with the end-run he's performed already.