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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (169180)	6/8/2006 10:55:12 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793791

think we all agree that the coalition allies didn't have a U.N. resolution or "permission" to invade Iraq. I am so confused. Wasn't that the whole question before some people decided that questioning a post that asserted we DID have approval for the use of military force was somehow an attack on Bush, the admin, and everything red, white, and blue, followed by a sort of moot court argument that the fact of the failure of France et al. to approve didn't count because they are corrupt? Why is it that these factors should affect the initial correction-- that there was no formal approval for our invasion? Unlike some others, you seem to understand the differentiation between this and the other issues that have been raised (which may be argued til our faces are purple-- or red white and blue depending on your belief, I guess) You're correct that I didn't support the war from the beginning, and I still believe we made serious mistakes. And it's a lot more than a tinge of regret. I was opposed to the war from the beginning for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was a belief that we were not in any way prepared for the aftermath and went in with a willful disregard for those who had legitimate, informed but opposing opinions. I voted for Bush, was a long term Republican, and have no real sympathies with the Democratic party, but in this yes, I believe we made some terrible errors in judgment and are paying heavily for it. That is, of course, just my opinion, which anyone may reject as a messy plate of scrambled eggs, an admittedly easy and rather shallow way to deal with people who think differently. Thank you for at least trying to understand me.

To: Neeka who wrote (169180)	8/10/2006 8:41:16 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793791

Just WHAT does a UN resolution mean, really? I think we all agree that the coalition allies didn't have a U.N. resolution or "permission" to invade Iraq. Israel had a UN Resolution (1559) requiring the disarming of Hezbollah. Lot of good it did them, didn't it? You jnow what? All this commotion won't matter at the end. What WILL matter is who won and who lost. Let's see that WE win. Let me give an example: Alexander the Great didn't have a UN Resolution saying he could invade Turkey, Syria, Iran, Israel, ... He just did. And won. And now his lack of that resolution doesn't matter. What does matter is he won. If the UN WON'T enforce its resolutions requiring positive action of some group, why should it expect respect respect for ANY of them? They are just meaningless hot air and paper.