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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (410310)	8/25/2008 4:47:49 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575067

So, are you saying we are the world's policeman? Or can any country enforce UN resolutions? We are, in many instances, the world's policeman, of course. There really isn't anyone else capable of doing the job. However, in this case, it wasn't us acting as the world's policeman. Saddam had entered into a cease-fire agreement pursuant to UN Resolution 687 in 1991. The conditions of the cease fire were detailed and agreed to by Saddam as the Iraqi government. Almost immediately, the Iraq government began violating the cease fire agreement, and the UN failed to respond. Resolution 1441 in 2000 detailed the other resolutions which had been ignored by Saddam since the cease fire agreement was executed and demanded full compliance therewith. The instant Saddam first violated Resolution 687, America was within its rights to act to restart the war. Over the ensuing 9 years, Iraq violated no fewer than 12 specific resolutions, any one of which constituted a breach of Iraq's commitment to end the Gulf War and which reinstated America's right and obligation to change the regime. World's policeman? I don't know. But Saddam had to be removed, should have been removed during the Clinton years, but Clinton was incompetent. So, it was necessary for the next competent president, Bush, to do what Clinton couldn't or wouldn't.