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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (149067)	10/21/2002 11:29:04 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

"BTW the coalition that Bush Sr assembled was unprecendented and was quite amazing, to have so many disparate countries, over 100 if I recall correctly, signing on" Yes indeed, it really was a remarkable accomplishment and Bush Sr. deserves to be recognized for this achievement. Schwarzkopf attributed our success to the morale boost that the soldiers received from knowing they had a mission that was accepted by all as legitimate -- he said recently that we should do everything possible to take any future actions in the same way, through the UN, and to avoid "going it alone". He emphasized how much it undermines morale to have a cloud over the legitimacy of the mission and referred to Vietnam as an example of how badly morale is affected by asking soldiers to fight when it is not clear that the mission is backed by a broad consensus.

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (149067)	10/21/2002 11:52:11 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Vic, what the coalition decided to do or not to do is not the issue here. The issue was GST's assertion that it would have been illegal to "finish the job" because the UN prohibited it and that the US or anyone else needs UN approval to take any military action against another country. The UN did no such thing and if "finishing the job" was necessary to defend Kuwait and ensure peace in the region, it was not only perfectly legal under long-established principles of international law, but was also explicitly authorized by the UN. BTW, I wouldn't presume to "Monday morning quarterback" the decision made in 1991 to "stop at the border." At the time, I doubt anyone in Washington could have anticipated that Saddam would still be a threat today, that the UN would fail so miserably at disarming him, or that such well financed global terrorist organizations would exist that could, with Saddam's help, potentially threaten the US directly with his WMDs. Many of those who ask "why didn't we finish the job then?" are only asking rhetorically so that they can then ask "if it wasn't a good idea then, why is it necessary now?" The answer is that it didn't appear to be necessary then, but knowing then what we know now, it might have appeared differently and the choice might have been different. And since we can't go back and rewrite the conclusion of the Gulf War, we are left with the decision to make now - how can we render Saddam and his weapons harmless?