SI
SI
discoversearch

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: craig crawford who wrote (153090)2/17/2003 8:12:29 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
The US cannot act alone in the name of the UN -- that is the main source of frustration for the current Administration in the WH. If the US seeks nothing more than to act in the name of the US it is always free to do so. If the US wants to act in the name of the UN it needs to achieve some degree of concurrence with the Security Council. The reason the US is using the UN is simple -- public opinion strongly favors it. The US is not trusted to act alone and does not want to bear the costs or consequences alone.



To: craig crawford who wrote (153090)2/17/2003 1:26:24 PM
From: Randy Ellingson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
>> hogwash. the problem is not unilateralism. if a position is in our best interests and morally justified, it really doesn't matter whether or not we receive approbation from europe or the UN.

I disagree that we should disregard alliances such as the UN and NATO. I agree though that many people opposed to a war now cite the lack of mulilateralism. Unilateral or multilateral, I think this war is not a just war.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News