Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: michael97123 who wrote (106483)	7/19/2003 3:59:41 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Good post. The reason why no coalition could be created around the new version of "regime change" as articulated by Cheney was that the US would now be the sole arbiter of who to invade, when to invade, why an invasion was needed, and what would be done in the aftermath. The rest of the world did not want the US to be put in that position. The rest of the world wanted some international body to be the basis for making these decisions -- and the UN was the only game in town, although NATO is sometimes used for this purpose. The US then pretended to go along with Britain to use the UN for this purpose, all the while saying that it retained the right to do anything it pleases to anybody, anytime it likes. The so-called "hawks" on this thread think that Cheney and his friends are on the right track and the US should dominate the world. The UN did not rubber stamp a US invasion so the US rejected the UN and invaded anyway. Others in history have desired the same thing. All of them were defeated. Many of them are among the most ugly of all human beings -- Hitler comes to mind.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next