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: michael97123 who wrote (155291)	1/5/2005 2:44:50 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Unilateral refers to sides -- it matters not how many are on our side, that is but one side. What matters is what is on the OTHER side -- and the other side was Saddam. What did Saddam do to the United States and its 'coalition' that provides a legitimate reason for the US, Great Britain and anybody else you care to include to invade Iraq -- that is the sole issue here. And that is the correct usage of the term unilateral in the context of an invasion by one side (the US 'coalition') versus the other side (Iraq). I do not call those who have such a poor grasp of the English language "idiots", even if they are. Nor do I call them "liars", even if their posts are full of made-up nonsense. I simply address the meaning of the word unilateral, and I do it because it is the heart and soul of our very dangerous and very self-destructive foreign policy.