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: Alighieri who wrote (163728)	3/10/2003 6:01:16 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1573901

Did Billary get permission from the UN to blitz Kosovo? I recall a lot of european opposition there as well. Jim

To: Alighieri who wrote (163728)	3/10/2003 6:02:31 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573901

Alighieri, re:But it is unjust, unwise, arrogant, to go the UN, ask support and permission to do something as grave as invade another country, and proclaim that you are going to do it anyway, regardless of what that institution says. That's just wrong, and it paints a scary picture of the US_lone_superpower. It's understandable that other nations will band together and put up resistance. It's bad policy. Seems every US president is compared to Hitler: cnn.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (163728)	3/10/2003 7:35:53 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573901

Others are not so quick to give the UN veto power over our foreign policy. But it is unjust, unwise, arrogant, to go the UN, ask support and permission to do something as grave as invade another country, and proclaim that you are going to do it anyway, regardless of what that institution says. That's just wrong, and it paints a scary picture of the US_lone_superpower. It's understandable that other nations will band together and put up resistance. It's bad policy. Imagine Powell's job......he's trying to work with the UN as his boss says the organization is irrelevant. I am not sure what form of diplomacy this is but my brother and I behaved similarly when we were in 6th/5th grades. Meanwhile Blair's situation is worsening.....one of his undersecretaries has resigned and now the International Development Secretary is threatening to resign if he doesn't have UN backing. Consequently, I understand Blair is asking for an extension to the 17 March deadline. Apparently, only 15% of Britons support a war with Iraq without the UN's backing. In two months, Americans will be there too if Bush doesn't move on Iraq soon. And that, of course, is why he's making his move now rather than later. Meanwhile, here in the NW, No Iraq War signs are sprouting up much like spring flowers except, of course, at JJ's and Ten's houses. At their houses, they have signs saying "Plant a Bush"! <g> ted

To: Alighieri who wrote (163728)	3/11/2003 8:29:05 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573901

Al RE...But it is unjust, unwise, arrogant, to go the UN, ask support and permission to do something as grave as invade another country, and proclaim that you are going to do it anyway, regardless of what that institution says. And it is just as arrogant of you to claim the UN has any idea what it wants. It is not like the UN ever acted unilaterally, or that most nations go through the UN when going to war. . 1441 does give us permission to act with UN support. Just because another resolution failed, doesn't mean 1441 doesn't apply. In fact, until there is another resolution overriding 1441, 1441 would still be in effect. But Iraq has not produced "undeterrables", as a lady in the audience said in her question to Tom. Gee, why is that? It is because the people of Iraq agree that Saddam is the problem, not the US. Why would they attack the country which is trying to liberate them? Most of the attackers were from SA, because OBL wants to separate SA from American support, so he can take over.