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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (45983)	9/21/2002 9:11:30 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, why do you regard the UN Security Council as having more authority in foreign affairs than the US government? Did you or I ever vote for these people, or are they representatives of their governments, still mostly dictatorships? For the love of pete, why do you think that emasculating the government of the United States in favor of the UN Security Council would be an advance for either law or security? Does their track record inspire confidence? Nor did anyone in the world vote for the US to run roughshod into preemptive action without it's having to make a case for that action. The only place such a case can be made today is in the UN. Why has the US Congress been sent a Bush Iraqi resolution now rather than, say, February which is likely to be closer to any invasion date? November elections. Karl Rove. And that argument stands unless the Bush folk advance a serious case for an immediate threat. I seem to recall someone asking Andrew Card that, if the threat were so immediate, why the administration did not try to do something in August. His reply was a classic replay of the Win Smith "marketing" argument. I am not arguing the US, via the Bush administration, does not have the right to defend itself. I am arguing that (a) the case has not been argued, and (b) since Bush argued that the case was actually Iraq's violation of UN resolutions, it has to be decided there.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (45983)	9/21/2002 10:06:04 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

" Did you or I ever vote for these people ". You and John may have voted for your country's representatives, the same allowance given to every other democratically elected regime as member nations. Remember now, the ONLY non - democratic government of the five in the UNSC with veto power is China. The other ten rotating members come from the larger pool that may or may not be democracies, with the vast vast majority of members being democracies, except for the ME. But here is a scenario that Bush,Inc, and surely no one here, have contemplated : What if when the UN takes a vote and does not ratify the proposals as submitted.No amount of further " consultation " can meet an acceptable compromise, and the US walks away to begin unilateral action? Unilateral action begins as a regime change attempt with no other ME country onboard, except Israel, as all those countries have backed a UN only resolution. The UN then expels the US from the Security Councel.The US insists the UN leave American soil.All of the UN members who agree insist all US military personal and equipment be removed from their soil, all embassies are closed and all foreign ambassadors are recalled. ( By the way - oil is now 50 US BBL - the Dow is 3000 - the USD is now 80 cents and gold is now 500 per OZ ) Next step?