Moderate Forum Message Board

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 : Moderate Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tsigprofit who wrote (7201)	2/23/2004 1:39:58 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) of 20773

* Kerry would have at least worked through the UN to contain Iraq - much like Clinton did. Bush did try. How long do you think a President should try to get the approval of the UN, many of whose members are inimicable to our interests, before acting? Should we never act without UN approval? Isn't that tanamount to putting the UN in charge of our foreign policy? I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't have tried a bit longer, though frankly I think he never would have gotten France and Russia to agree since they had such lucrative contracts with Saddam. Therefore any SC vote would have been vetoed. They preferred to have Saddam in power providing them economic benefits and if he tortured and killed more civilians or developed WMD to attack other countries, that wasn't their problem. So in Iraq's case, working with the UN was a lost cause. Aren't there, at least in theory, some cases where we have to say screw he UN, we're acting without you? Consider if the Arab League countires attacked Israel. Would we wait for UN approval, which given the makeup of the UN would never be forthcoming, before going to Israel's aid if it looked as though without our assistance they would be totally destroyed as a nation and a people?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next