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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (75311)	2/29/2000 4:03:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

would you say the actions related to Iraq are based on US directives or UN? The US went to a good deal of trouble to persuade the UN to issue directives that would provide an apparent cloak of international approval for what the US already wanted to do. This was diplomatic necessity; unilateral US action against a Middle Eastern Muslim state would have been unacceptable to key allies, mainly Saudi Arabia. The UN followed the US lead, not the other way around. The US went to war with Iraq because our elected government felt that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the possibility of further action against the Saudi oil fields, posed an unacceptable risk to US security, not because the UN requested it. It has continued that way ever since - you don't see the UN coming to Clinton begging him to fire cruise missiles at Iraqi targets. The US maneuvers UN support for its strikes.