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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (43700)	9/13/2002 11:37:15 AM
From: dvdw©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

To the propagandist who push this clap trap forward; Here is a considered reply to a paragraph parsed appropriately; Really? Entire Paragraph;Really? Many Europeans -- and Kofi Annan -- would disagree with that quintessentially American view. They have this idea that the U.N. Security Council is the only world body legally empowered to decide whether Iraq is to be invaded. They think that if powerful nations such as the United States go around deciding for themselves who will and who will not be invaded, then the world will collapse into a Hobbesian state of nature. As French President Jacques Chirac told the New York Times' Elaine Sciolino recently, "a few principles and a little order are needed to run the affairs of the world. . . . I can't say both 'the Security Council must decide' and then, once it has decided, 'I'll do what I want.' " But that's the funny thing about American "multilateralists": Powell and Baker and many others have no trouble saying exactly that. Many Europeans -- and Kofi Annan -- would disagree with that quintessentially American view. Who cares, what they think! They are appointed politicians skilled in the art of politics, that does not make their opinions credible, it just means they have opinions of self interest, we all have em. They have this idea that the U.N. Security Council is the only world body legally empowered to decide whether Iraq is to be invaded. Don't agree, as civillians are slaughtered by president, or dictators who occupy thier offices by force or fraud, the UN is but a place to feign legitimacy, it's a place to hide the actions of the worst among us in a room full of personalities who share the goals of absolute determination of who gets what . We Americans will never aceede to UN sanctioning, and forfiet our morality to a hive of immorality. They think that if powerful nations such as the United States go around deciding for themselves who will and who will not be invaded, then the world will collapse into a Hobbesian state of nature. As French President Jacques Chirac told the New York Times' Elaine Sciolino recently, "a few principles and a little order are needed to run the affairs of the world. . . . Wishful thinking on their part dont you think? Again we will never give them control of our part of the world, frankly, they are not up to it. Many amongst them are little more than mouthpieces of criminals who seek the cover of the UN to hide their own immoral behaviors at home. To Claim legitimacy by seeking consensus of those as evil or corrupt as you are is easy, but it has no relevance to anyone outside this club. If Sadaam believes in the UN why isnt he on the World Stage making his case. The UN has big budget, send him a ticket. I can't say both 'the Security Council must decide' and then, once it has decided, 'I'll do what I want.' " But that's the funny thing about American "multilateralists": Powell and Baker and many others have no trouble saying exactly that. But that is exactly how we feel about the UN, Thats clear Mr Chirac, America has not asceeded itself to the UN, our Constitution and the bill of Rights are far superior to any UN charters, no American citizen would debase themselves that way. Liberty and Justice for all. Can the UN even spell Liberty?