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: aladin who wrote (112547)	8/24/2003 1:03:31 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John. Words matter. It is wrong to characterize US action as anything other than unilateral. It is not simply unilateral in the event. It is unilateral by design and intent -- we adopted a policy of unilateralism. We elevated it to the level of "doctrine" -- the Bush Doctrine. We do not merely have unilateral action in Iraq. We have unilateral foreign policy. There is only one country in command in Iraq -- the US. The US decision to invade Iraq was in no way predicated on other countries agreeing to US action. There was no UN sanction for our action. The US decided to invade. If no country joined the US, the US would still invade. Any country that joined the US would do so on US terms -- and any country that opposed the US was treated as an enemy. This was and is a US invasion -- period. The US is the occupying army -- there is no other occupying power except the US. No other country can claim to be in control of the military in Iraq. None of this is an accident -- we chose to take unilateral action. Our decision was unilateral. Our command structure is unilateral. Calling this anything BUT unilateral is a crime against the English language and a bald-faced attempt to misrepresent what has happened and what is happening in Iraq. This is not a statement made in anger. This is a statement made to clarify a most serious issue -- one where our National Security has been hurt by extremely bad policy -- a policy if unilateralism.

To: aladin who wrote (112547)	8/24/2003 1:10:33 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The post you responded to refers to attempts being made to to misrepresent the US occupation as being ok'd by the UN --this is misinformation that borders on propaganda. I object to a policy-oriented thread being used to spread deceptive assertions. There is a body of international law that deals with the responsibilities of an army of occupation. A resolution by the UN spelling out US responsibilities as an occupying power is being passed off as support from the UN for the occupation. This is deceptive if not downright dishonest.