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: Bilow who wrote (137886)	6/25/2004 12:50:23 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

First, the UN didn't want to go in. They wanted to continue sanctions. Carl, I wasn't suggesting that the U.N. would have participated in the invasion. I was suggesting, and I believe correctly, that following the optimism that surrounded the early military success, the U.N. would have taken an active role in the "rebuilding process." Of course with the mess that now exists, no entity, country or business seems very anxious to roll the dice in Iraq. In addition you state that, "The result would have been that the Iraqis would have shot the crap out of the UN, and the UN might even have left before terrorists got around to car bombing their leader. You may be right but my point is that they would have been shooting the crap out of the U.N., an organization of NATIONS and an entity that is not nearly as suspect as the U.S. in terms of imperialistic shading. The U.N. clearly would have had a much better chance of securing the cooperation and resources of the Arab leaders and religious leaders that count for something in the Gulf. Finally it is probably true that no matter what we'd done after the "successful" war in Iraq, we'd still be left holding a tiger by the tail. The mistake was, we both agree, in being so naive, greedy and foolish that we messed with that hive. I'm not, therefor, trying to say that the inevitable upheaval and bloodletting "could" have been avoided, I'm simply suggesting that if we hadn't compounded our stupidity with more stupidity we could have lessened it's impact on American lives, fortune and prestige and probably lessened the probable turbo-terrorist effects of our actions there. I think the thing that sticks in the minds of those who answer by saying that Kerry COULD probably do no better, is that Bush DID no better. In my view Bush's incompetence is a certainty that should forfeit his right to have the American public ratify his mistakes by empowering him for another four years, while the potential incompetency of Kerry is still an open question. In addition, and maybe just as importantly, a Kerry election will speak volumes to the world concerning the American public's disapproval of the Bush Iraqi policies.