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: zonder who wrote (16397)	5/1/2003 12:17:49 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

I expressed my opinion because I wouldn't be drawn into a debate on whether UN vote counted or not. I think the time spent at UN was wasted for the reasons I mentioned. I don't think I stated that UN relevance depended on its support of US. Irrelevant means just what it means. You misstate my post. I don't care if they were for US. The structure of the security council is outdated. The ability to stymie action through the veto by a jealous nation, which is only on the council because of historical ability to raise a yellow flag does not compute in today's world. As for morality, I'd like to see an international body that starts with the protection of human freedoms, including freedom from the type of tyranny fostered by Saddam. Is this possible? Who knows. That's why US acted and acted virtually alone. It gets back to my point that the UN is irrelevant and we are not in a popularity contest. AS for French and Russian debt, most was used for palaces and weapons. That government no longer exists so there is an argument that they can't collect. I realize that there are other arguments contra mine. Taking away legalities, I'd like to see the French and Russians "forgive" the debt, become involved in rebuilding for the sake of the Iraqi people. Let them collect from Saddam's personal bank accounts if possible. Otherwise, they can take a tax write-off <gggg>.