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 (3252)	1/12/2004 6:53:19 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3959

WE COULD HAVE LET THE UN DEAL WITH A LOCAL BULLY AND HIS TWO SONS. And exactly what would they have "dealt" with them with?? How did the UN "deal" with Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait? Do you think the UN is some kind of independent government, with its own army and police force? This is just the typical BS we get from the left.. They say we should have let the UN "handle it" but the UN had a clear record of not even being able the prevention of genocide in Iraq (or Rwanda). The UN can't handle anything unless it's member nations permit it to do so through their votes. The US is one member of that body (although the most significant member). And thus, by going to the UN to obtain 1441, and pronouncement that Iraq was in material breach, BUSH DID LET THE UN HANDLE IT.. He let them handle it as they always do, on the political end... But any fool, except a select few deluded by their bias, understand that the UN has no military capability of it's own. Thus, they can pronounce whatever resolution they so desire, but there is no military capability to enforce it. Which leaves us with one realization that even you must face: THE US HAS ALWAYS BORN THE PRIMARY BURDEN FOR MILITARILY ENFORCING UN RESOLUTIONS. The UNSC passed 1441 unanimously and promised "severe consequences" if Saddam refused to fully cooperate and disclose all unaccounted for WMDs within 90 days (including those 6,000 mission warheads from the Iran-Iraq war). They failed to do so... And Bush, under UN authority of 1441, dealt out those "serious consequences".. That's called "letting the UN deal with it"... Had Bush chosen to act unilaterally, the UN would have had no role in the process. Thus, what we really have is a bunch of bleeding hearts like yourself crying over Saddam's downfall, and unwilling to accept the responsibility for having voting to permit it to occur.. Hawk

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3252)	1/12/2004 7:05:29 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Cninu. You gonna buy O'Neill'S book. :-) Seems anyone who want's to make a few bucks writes a book. I here Pete Rose has a book out. Wouldn't hurt to throw a few bucks his way as well. :-)

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3252)	1/12/2004 7:19:13 AM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Hawkmoon....I have a very simple philosophy re USA and the rest of the world...it goes like this.... """"""""The USA must do whatever is necessary to preserve our Standard of Living and Our Way of Life for ourselves our children, grandchildren and the children of generations to come. We must endeavor to control the World through Economic measures and Military might in order to secure these objectives."""""""" long to short....Benevolent dictatorship.... the sooner we accomplish this the better. regards