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: GST who wrote (155294)	1/5/2005 2:46:30 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

The US action was not "unilateral" under any definition of the word. Anyone who says so is a liar. J.

To: GST who wrote (155294)	1/5/2005 2:59:38 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"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)." You are confusing unilateral action with what you consider to be an unprovoked action by what i consider to be a multilateral force.

To: GST who wrote (155294)	1/5/2005 3:23:56 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It might be better to get away from x-lateral as a term if you're going to define it that way, GST, because it allows without qualification that Hussein had legitimacy to form one of the sides in the issue .... this won't wash with many who did oppose invasion by the Coalition of Bullied and Bribed due to its nature and the dictatorial way in which the decision to invade was imposed, then subsequently the absolute lack of adequate governance once the place had been shot up Seeing the 'two sides' that way falls straight into the bogus binary choices presented by the neocons .... who did have some basic points that needed to be more front and centre, imho, primarily that regimes like that do present a danger, over and above the fact that they shame us as a species .... the neocon crime is in the way they cook up these hasty decisions, sell them to the US public, and then impose them on the Rest of Us Something did need to be done about Hussein, imho, just not something that narrowly based and poorly thought-out ... a broader true coalition of democracies, with or without a component of arab/muslim regimes alongside, and with a decent plan for follow-through and reconstruction of Iraq - this would have brought far more support and stood a far better chance of improving the situation .... too late now of course, the spiral is downward, but let's hope something of the lesson gets learned in the process ...... anyway, happy new year FADG ... cheers