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: Oeconomicus who wrote (149637)	11/4/2002 10:45:02 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

An invasion and occupation by the UN is qualitatively different than an invasion and occupation by the US. Unless we are motivated by a resource grab, the US is a poor choice for stabilizing Iraq in a post-Saddam regime. There are many reasons why going through the UN provides for a very different outcome, even if the immediate goal of getting rid of Saddam is the same. My "issue" has been that the unilateral regime change by US invasion cannot under any circumstances be supported by the UN -- and certainly not after the diplomatic fiasco of the past year. What is more, our unilateral regime change policy damages the UN and creates an atmosphere that could spin into a more lawless and chaotic world -- and heaven knows, the world is already far from stable. The US would be well advised to have a two-stage approach where the UN pulls the trigger, invades, deposes Saddam and is left with managing the aftermath. Less than 30% of Americans support an invasion without the UN.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (149637)	11/6/2002 8:48:11 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<In an attempt to meet French and Russian concerns, the new U.S. draft gives Saddam "a final opportunity" to comply with U.N. inspectors, holds out the possibility lifting sanctions against Iraq and adds a reaffirmation of Iraq's sovereignty, according to a copy of the draft obtained late Tuesday by The Associated Press. But it remains to be seen whether the latest draft meets the concerns of Russia, France and others who have lobbied to remove language that could give a green light for a war against Saddam, 11 years after a U.S.-led coalition routed his forces from Kuwait.> story.news.yahoo.com