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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (177949)	11/13/2003 11:54:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577891

IMO if the invasion is justified with UN approval it is also justified without such approval, and if it is wrong or unjustified without UN approval then it would also be wrong or unjustified with such approval. No it isn't.....who knows which way the discussion would have gone if the UN were involved. Once you introduce something as big as the UN into the equation everything changes. Bush knew that.......that's why he did all he could to keep them out of it. Its too bad.......Saddam's impact was not just on the US but Bush acted as if it was. The arrogance of his attitude is what offends. And the schism he created is not some minor thing that will go away. He needs to lose his job over this misstep. There may be practical benefits to UN support but even these can easily be exaggerated. If UN support meant that another 40,000 non American soldiers where helping out in Iraq the situation wouldn't be that much different then it is now. Any fool can see we desperately need more troops in Iraq. I don't care what Bush or Sanchez or Cheney or Rummie say...........they've lost all credibility. They are committed to some outdated plan that is falling part by the second. ted