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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (3608)	2/9/2003 12:55:47 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

Basically it would amount to a defense of Saddam from the United States by the UN. Which is not what any of the resolutions heretofore have called for, btw.

To: D. Long who wrote (3608)	2/9/2003 1:17:40 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

But won't UN occupation of Iraq encourage more terrorist attacks? On who? The UN? Or does that only happen when Saddam is removed from power? I think few would mourn his exit. The trouble would start, IMHO, if the US attacked unilaterally and killed beaucoup villagers. This is "occupation with a dictator-friendly face." US troops not welcome, and we'll look the other way if we find anything, mes amis. Although France apparently has much to hide, you hardly ever hear them referred to globally as swaggering cowboys.