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: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (169246)	6/10/2006 1:59:37 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793776

OK, Alistair, what was left to do? More sanctions? Saddam had done an end run around them. The UN was never going to go "all necessary means" because Iraq hadn't invaded anyone. The UN Charter doesn't allow invading a country because its govt is committing crimes against humanity. It was written for govts not people. The UN is not a govt of govts; it's a govt talking shop. If it's necessary to invade a country for any reason other than its attack on a neighbour, then you have to do it and ask forgiveness later - eg Vietnam into Cambodia, US/NATO into Yugoslavia. So, the best the US could ever get from the UN in the Iraq case was "serious consequences".