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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (16385)	5/1/2003 11:56:30 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Wow, what a string of intellectual dishonesty, or maybe just too much propaganda. Well, there is this old USA study that appr 1/3 of americans can very easily be made to believe things which have provenly never happened, while it takes some more effort and repetition for another 1/3. Btw, $10billions, isn't that the same figure that USA kindly gives away to one little part of that region??

To: rrufff who wrote (16385)	5/1/2003 12:03:30 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Sorry but why did you launch into discussing whether or not UN is "relevant"? Does this mean you see what I mean re Vitas' statements that I objected to? Then hopefully you can explain to him in private, in words he will understand :-) UN is pretty much irrelevant, but that's my opinion And mine is that it is a very bizarre suggestion that the "relevance" of an organization depends on its unconditional support of its most powerful member. I'm not convinced that UN failure to go along with US was based on morality. IMO, it was based on financial dealings Who told you it HAD to be just on "morality"??? As with all international issues, countries took sides on this one as well on the basis of (1) Benefits to their own citizens, and (2) What they think is "right". It was no different for the US. Unless you want to argue that Bush did not have the interests of Americans in mind at all when invading Iraq... full disclosure would require France and Russia to state that force would jeopardize their more than $10 billion investment and loans Are you under the impressiont that Iraq's debt repayments are now "jeopardized"? That is strange. I thought countries' sovereign debts did not just evaporate each time their government, or even form of government, changed.