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: Hawkmoon who wrote (171198)	9/23/2005 4:35:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<if I recall your opinion correctly, we should have just left Saddam in power and perpetuated placing temporary political "band-aids" on a regional problem.. > If people know what they now know, that's exactly what would have happened. I doubt the USA now feels it's getting value for money and lives. King George II has failed to find Osama, has failed to semi-civilize Iraq, has run up colossal deficits. The weapons of mass destruction were a joke, even before the invasion found a distinct lack of them. The other motivations for the war were debatable. The consequences have been bad. I always said a reconstituted United Nations was the answer, bringing pressure to bear on Saddam to play nice. Glaspie and co induced Saddam to annex Kuwait, setting off the current train of events. But, I still am happy with the USA invading Iraq and trying to sort it out. Saddam and sons were a horror for so many that what has happened has been no worse as far as I can tell. There is even the prospect that things will get a lot better. I personally would have not chosen to invade, but if USA soldiers wanted to do that, it's better to have King George II in charge of Iraq than Saddam, Uday and Qusay. But I don't think it's the best use of my tax money or soldiers' lives. Now it's done, I think the UN should rate mention in the constitution as being the federal body which establishes boundaries between Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Kuwait and perhaps owns the oil which would be the Iraqi government's funding source. That would mean changing the UN constitution so that it could have protectorates. It would preferably mean changing the USA constitution too, so that the UN could become a fit-for-purpose international political institution. All it would take is some imagination and goodwill. I don't think the USA is serious about democracy. It's just blather and cant. They don't want a democratic UN with some serious powers over the international commons. Mqurice