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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (159637)	1/31/2003 8:11:59 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1584437

It is to our advantageous to keep the UN strong if for no other reason, then it gives us the appearance of trying to be fair and reasonable. Clinton knew that and Powell and Bush know it. I don't disagree with you about this. In fact, I think you have arrived at an apt description of the value of the organization -- simply a "shell" that is useful for appearances. And so long as it doesn't conflict with our interests, we should use it to our advantage. When the UN gets in the way of a righteous humanitarian mission with a serious national security implication, then it is fine for us to jetison it. Realistically, if the UN fails to act strongly (and I believe it will NOT fail), that will be the end of its credibility. Chirac is protecting his own fat wallet, and in the end, he knows that his wallet is fatter by being part of the coalition than it will be from siding with Saddam. But I do agree with your characerization of the UN.

To: tejek who wrote (159637)	1/31/2003 8:13:15 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584437

Its why they keep working with the UN inspite of their frustration. The world has grown too small for countries to act unilaterally. We need to set the example for the rest of the world. As to your remarks concerning unilateralism, the United States is not now, and never has, so far as I'm aware, acted unilaterally with respect to Iraq. Even if the UN DID vote against war, our actions against Iraq would be far from unilateral, as there will be at a minimum 10 or 20 other countries involved; that simply defies application of the term "unilateral". Unilateral would be if we attacked Iraq with no (zero) other nations joining us.