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: steve harris who wrote (699831)	2/19/2013 12:40:34 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587800

Hi steve harris; Re: "U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion" Unfortunately, there's no mention of a "no fly zone" in the 1991 US Cease-Fire Resolution. You can google it easily. It's called "687". It specifies a DMZ of 10km into Iraq and 5km into Kuwait. There's no mention of a no-fly zone covering the majority of Iraq. And getting back to the issue, surely you're not arguing that Saddam signed UN resolution 687. That's not possible because the resolution wasn't signed by Iraq. -- Carl P.S. I don't see why you should treat the LA Times as an impartial source on this (though I'm not disagreeing with anything in that article which, in fact, notes that the justification was disputed). The LA Times is highly biased in favor of democrats. And it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who was responsible for 8 years of the ineffectual US no-fly zone policy. This was before the article you mentioned. I've little doubt that the Democratic justification for the no fly zone is essentially identical to the Republican. I was against the no fly zone when Democrats were orchestrating it and I was against it when Republicans were doing it. It was ineffective and it created huge problems for us. It was a minor contribution to the hatred that led to the destruction of the WTC. And now that Saddam is gone, the Arab states of the Middle East are falling apart -- and being replaced by new regimes that are worse to deal with than the ones before. Egypt use to be a sort of an ally, now it's run by Islamists. When Gaddafi ran Libya we had it under control (mostly due to Reagan). Now look at it. And when Syria falls it will be more problems for us. Eventually it's not unlikely that the monarchy that runs Saudi Arabia will fall and whatever replaces it (democracy or not) is hardly likely to be more friendly to us. These are not advances. It would be much better if we let the whole place alone so we weren't involved with either (a) trying to prop up dictators who are friendly to us, or (b) having to deal with democracies voted into power by citizens who hate us because we're so deeply involved with the place (and ignore simple facts of international law, for example, the no-fly zone). Better would have been to simply shake hands with Saddam and get the US out of the place. I mean really, wasn't there a general who said something about "land wars in Asia"? The no fly zone was stupid but at least it wasn't a land war. What we're getting in Iraq (and now Afghanistan too, since our forces were mostly used in Iraq) is new regimes that are worse for us than what was there before. This is foreign policy by morons, democrat and republican.