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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (452853)	9/5/2003 12:13:04 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

first show me this fictitious "specific timeline" of yours. The UN inspectors said they needed MORE time.

To: Vitas who wrote (452853)	9/5/2003 12:30:12 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

I have argued since before the war that we should have had the UN on our side, and gone in with a UN mandate. I believe we would still have had to shoulder the major responsibility and burden of the initial invasion, as in Gulf War I, but that would be to our advantage. Let's face it, we're good at war. At the time, there were a number of key votes we needed in the security council to get a majority. Six of the SC nations that were on the fence said that they would jump on our side if we waited an additional 45 days. If we had gone that route, we would have backed France into a corner of having to use its veto vote (Russia and China would not veto, IMHO, based on historical SC votes. The most they would do is abstain). Britain was up for a delay, though not the 45 days that the SC members wanted. France was open to talks. We slammed that door: archives.tcm.ie Once France was backed into that corner, we could have made some concessions as to the post-war Iraq. France is historically bellicose but easily 'swayed' when the right 'incentives' are made. Heck, we were prepared to give Turkey $15 BILLION to let us pass through their country. We have a long and proud history of bribing countries to take our side. Invading Iraq with an actual UN mandate would have completely changed the post-war dynamics. It would have automatically guaranteed a large number of foreign troops and foreign aid, and partially removed the big target on our US troops. It would have made Iraq a WORLD problem, not a US problem. Our failed diplomacy has come home to roost. And, not to mix too many metaphors, them ain't homing pidgeons, thems crows...