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

To: Win Smith who wrote (134216)	5/24/2004 12:46:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I heard a Congressman say the other day: “We tried it for seven months. What do you want?” Try it for 14. What was the rush, you know? I mean, I’ll go back to the point I made before. The painstaking approach that Bush 41 and others took to get the U.N. resolution first, to take the pains to build the coalition Y'know... I don't have a lot of issues with Zinni's recommendations for how we should be handling the post-war phase. But I do have a bit of an issue with his willingness to permit Saddam's regime to continue defying the UNSC AFTER FINALLY BEING DECLARED IN MATERIAL BREACH. A material breach is far different in context and importance than any of the previous dozen or more UNSC resolutions decrying Iraq's non-compliance.. It was the international equivalent of drawing a line in the sand, a final warning that Iraq had 90 days to come into compliance, not merely restart the same song and dance they had played between 1991 and 1998. UNSC was different. And for Zinni to say "what's the hurry" is indicative of the very problem that has existed with Iraq since the end of Desert Storm... 7 months could have turned into 14 months, which could have turned into 28 months, or even 56 months... Right back to stage one and STILL no conclusive compliance by Saddam. Sure, Bush was on a road to war.. He had an authorization to use force which was passed by 3/4 of the US congress. He HAD to back up his words or it would be perceived by the world that no one would need to ever fear UNSC sanctions again. And the Oil for Food scandal would have grown to even larger proportions of corruption than it had in the 6 years it was in place. And no one would have known the complicity of the French, Germans, and Russians, in how they undermined the institutional integrity of the UN as an organization. Hawk