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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (110376)	8/7/2003 11:56:15 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Its called collective security and as a result of repelling iraq, an agreement was created between the coalition and iraq, which iraq violated virtually from the getgo. If collective security is to work, consequences should be clear and not subject to endless after the fact debate. So in your world US should have followed UN but which UN and when? Also nothing in collective security prevents the UN from regime change so the Gulf War could have decided saddams fate if that was what was called for. mike

To: GST who wrote (110376)	8/7/2003 1:01:42 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Kuwait is a perfect example of the United States lending its power and influence to moribund gaggle of overpaid, thumbsucking, smoked-salmon-snacking drones and giving them an aura of legitimacy in the process that they could in no way ever have aspired to or sustained on their own. Had the UN simply been left to its own devices, Saddam Hussein would still be in Kuwait today. The United States exercised its power and influence to force the issue, and forced the UN into action. You are simply mouthing a fantasy. The UN is little more than a bunch of pimply hall-monitors who are utterly dependent on the fact that there is a principal with a paddle behind them who can make it stick.