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 (16405)	5/1/2003 12:33:43 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

I expressed my opinion because I wouldn't be drawn into a debate on whether UN vote counted or not That was never the "debate", though. You cannot have missed (1) and (2) in my post. I don't think I stated that UN relevance depended on its support of US Its "relevance" was questioned only after it opposed the US will to invade Iraq, though. The structure of the security council is outdated.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. That's how it always was - Those five countries are there only because of historical reasons and the US, more than any other, has vetoed resolutions numerous times because of its own interests. That "structure" was never questioned before :-) 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? Perhaps. Although I would dare say invading sovereign countries is not the best way to "project human freedom". That's why US acted and acted virtually alone I am far from convinced that the US invaded Iraq to "project human freedom". AS for French and Russian debt, most was used for palaces and weapons That is irrelevant. The debts were taken by the recognized state of a sovereign country. They are still outstanding. That government no longer exists so there is an argument that they can't collect. To the extent that argument exists, it is false. Please look back on the history of countries that have undergone such regime changes. New governments all assume the debt of the country. Sovereign debt is independent of changing governments, or even regimes. Let them collect from Saddam's personal bank accounts if possible Not sure that would be legal, and pretty sure they would not be enough.

To: rrufff who wrote (16405)	5/1/2003 12:41:56 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Do you think USA will have to pay, itself, for the costs of this war?? The Saudis do not seem to be willing to do it this time, nor anything to be expected from the willing coalition, especially not through UN, and Iraqi oil production won't be enough in maybe 3-5 or more years. What is worse, some little terrorist action on the unluckily very concentrated and productive Saudi oil fields could really upset the US economy. Additionally no Saddam around to avoid that with a heavy and cruel hand. (not to forget little Kuwait inbetween)