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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: runes who wrote (68511)	3/11/2003 6:26:27 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Runes and Tiger-- We may be closer than it sounds. Since we are in basic agreement that the UN has failed, and may fail in the future because sovereignty and self-interest is primary, what should be done when genocide is a matter of policy and the UN's shortcomings render it ineffective? That is why I don't have the same anger towards Bush that I do towards those in the Security Council who, IMO, have frequently looked the other way while crimes against humanity are being committed. Iraq, IMO,is a strong case for UN intervention. This was an opportunity for the UN to better establish international law. Bush certainly did not understand this and hence he hid behind the threat issue. However, Tony Blair has been saying that the evil of Saddam must be stopped. I frankly don't understand the intense criticism that Blair has received--including on this thread. We probably differ on whether Iraq has complied with 1441. IMO, it has not and the UN failed to enforce its own code and therefore set international law a great defeat. The defeat of international law is the collateral damage of inactivity. fred fred