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 (454981)	9/9/2003 1:16:23 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The UN had actionable cause to invade and if the UN had invaded it would not have been unilateral. The US did not have actionable cause. Any attack without actionable cause is, by definition, unilateral. It matters not one bit how many are on "our side". It matters only that the "other side" must do something to justify our action. Iraq did nothing to justify our invasion. The invasion was unilateral -- one-sided. Unilateral is an action. Multilateral is a configuration of parties. For example, you cannot have "unilateral talks". But you can have bilateral or multilateral talks. You can have "unilateral action", or you can have action in which TWO SIDES are engaged. Iraq was not engaged in our action -- they provided no reason for the US or a coalition led by the US to invade. You can clear up your confusion by answering the following question: Whose side are Britain and the other members of the "coalition of the willing" on? If you answer the US, you have one "side". Now, who is on the other "side". If you answered "Iraq" you would be right again. So what did Iraq do to justify an invasion? Did they attack us? No. Did they threaten to attack? No. The correct answer is, they did nothing. In this case there is only one side -- the attacking side (our side), and no provocation of the "other" side (Iraq). The action is, by definition, 100% unilateral. It takes TWO SIDES, not TWO OR MORE INVADERS ON THE SAME SIDE. If there are two sides, it is called "self-defense", not "multilateral".