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: Hawkmoon who wrote (112084)	8/20/2003 7:09:48 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<But I don't see Annan showing his "backside" in Iraq after such a major attack. It would suggest that no future UN "nation building" operation could possibly succeed. >>> Not a chance- per Annan the UN stays . Changes were needed, this is the trigger. And still the US must hold the fort while the UN debates its response and its future. And for one time in history, the US has the Military capabilities if they are required in some way. It seldom works to combine two organizations, like the UN for resolutions and the Nato for enforcement so what is the alternative for implanting teeth in the UN? Any good ideas that would not set the Western ideals right up against those of the East? Sig

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (112084)	8/20/2003 4:16:30 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "But what kind of signal will the UN be sending to terrorists around the world?" After months of hearing you bitch about how the UN was soft on Iraq, now I have to listen to you claim that the UN is suddenly going to get backbone??? You're in hope mode. The situation is hopeless. Re: "I may be wrong, but I think the UN will step up support of the US, rather than continuing to advance their previous agenda of taking over complete control of the Iraqi situation." In other words, the UN will step away from the situation, (leaving it to us to clean up the uncleanable) just like I said they will, LOL. Re: "But I don't see Annan showing his "backside" in Iraq after such a major attack." Just like Ronald Reagan said that the US would confront terrorists and stay in Lebanon, LOL. Except that Reagan actually came complete with testicles. Re: "It would suggest that no future UN "nation building" operation could possibly succeed." UN nation building operations have already succeeded in a few places, so no such future indication will come from Iraq. Maybe if people weren't able to tell the difference between one situation in one country and a different situation in another country, LOL. But hey, before the fact I told you guys that Afghanistan would be a cake-walk where our soldiers would be welcomed by celebrating Afghanis, but that in Iraq we would be sniped at until we knuckled under and left them to their own devices. What's really bad about this is that our foreign policies have now created an Al Qaeda breeding ground where Saddam had once kept them thoroughly suppressed. I don't think you realize how bad this is. Back on September 11th, Al Qaeda attacked us with box cutters. The primitiveness of their weapons was an indication that they had no access to better stuff like surface to air missiles etc. But now, with the descent of Iraq into chaos, the deep pockets of the Iraqi military are now being opened up to Al Qaeda. The neocons trembled in fear that Saddam would give WMDs to Al Qaeda. The non existence of those weapons would make their cowardly stupidity hilarious if it did not involve the killing of thousands of innocent people and the creation of a California sized terrorism training camp. -- Carl