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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (4012)	10/14/2003 8:30:36 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

What do we do? Give the Un everything they want and turn the mess over to them- let the militants, who are bound to rise from the ashes of Iraq, get mad at the UN. Take the money we would have spent in Iraq, and spend it hunting down terrorists, even if we have to pay bounties to the countries in which they hide. That would, I think, be the logical thing to do. Most bang for the buck.

To: rrufff who wrote (4012)	10/15/2003 8:52:28 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

However, what do we do from here? Go after the causes of the disease, rather than trying to pop the individual diseased cells one by one (not a bright tactic anyway, since new cells pop to replace the ones you kill, perhaps in higher quantities because of your aggressions) The UN wants more say over Iraq's future, but probably wouldn't provide more than a pittance in either funds or troops That's not the point. The US is asking UN to step in not because the body will provide "funds or troops" but because it will provide legitimacy. You may have noticed that quite a few countries are holding back financial help, military deployment, and recognition of Iraq's state because there is still no UN approval.