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: carranza2 who wrote (148985)	10/26/2004 8:21:08 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine - if the entire rest of the world thought Saddam really had WMD's then the world would have been on board. But they were not. Well, at least the UN would have been on board. But they were not. Ok, dismiss the UN because you don't feel they add any value (to the extent this is true it is a failure of US foreign policy, specifically as it relates to the UN, that makes it so). Ok, you don't like the UN. Then what about the extremely US friendly NATO? Surely if everyone knew Saddam had WMD, NATO itself would have been fully on board. But of course, they are not. The rest of the world agreed Saddam was a bad man, vewwy vewwy bad man. What they didn't agree upon was what to do about him. Those that promoted continued use of UN sanctions have proven to be on the right side of the argument. Those that promoted the war - Bush - have proven to be on the wrong side of the argument. Instead of using the formidable weight of the US to make sanctions and inspections work even better (the cost of which would have been miniscule in dollars and lives), Bush invaded. Only to be proven wrong. Not very good judgement.