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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3221)	1/10/2004 3:04:26 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Hawk if you can point me to a Security Council vote that the US under Clinton lost on the invasion issue, then it is a topic for debate. Not sure if Clinton ever tried to push an invasion of Iraq.. He was content to bomb and contain them.. But the repercussions of this containment effort required US forces to be stationed in Saudi Arabia.. And it was this presence that Bin Laden personally cited was his rationale for targeting the US on 9/11. You keep talking about 1441 but then subsequent to that the US lost a Security Council vote. Chinu.. there never was a vote. France stated they would veto any final resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq so there was no purpose in pursuing it.. I suggest you take up your "issues" with Chirac.. Ask him why he was unwilling to enforce UNSC resolutions, placing France's own economic interests over regional and international stability. Even Jim Baker and Bush Sr. worked with the world leaders. Same problem then.. France was threatening to veto, but their resistance was finally overcome through intensive international pressure (including some very frightened Arab states who saw Saddam's power grab as a direct threat to themselves). The US has very little to explain in enforcing those UNSC resolutions. If anyone has some explaining to do, it's France and Russia.. (and you). It is this Administration that has failed miserably in the foreign policy front. According to who's standard? Your obviously biased one? I'm seeing a myriad of Arab states displaying a far more conciliatory and cooperative attitude, Libya renouncing WMDs and seeking detente with Israel.. The Phillipines dealing with their Islamic militant threat.. Afghanistan passing a new constitution. Pakistan fighting their own militant groups.. N. Korea offering to shut down their nuclear facilities... All of these are changes DIRECTLY attributable to policies the Bush administration has passed since 9/11.. Hawk