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 (191803)	7/16/2006 6:47:25 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The UNSC opposed an invasion and any move to invade Iraq in the name of the UN would have been vetoed, so we scuttled our own plans to put a motion in front of the UNSC. No invasion of Iraq was EVER given a green light by the UN and Bush Sr. knew that he could not go in and take out Saddam with UN backing. Doing so would have been easy from a military standpoint, but it would have been illegal and it would have touched off an implosion of Iraq with the high potential for civil war, the strengthening of Iran, and in time could easily trigger a wider regional war that would go against us. He chose wisely not to do it unilaterally. His son is a far weaker President and could not stand up to the war lobby -- and it is a great loss to the US to have such a weak man in the White House. The war lobby in the US never tires of looking for ways to pretend that the US invasion was really just the US acting on behalf of the UN. Drop the pretense -- we invaded Iraq over the objections of other members of the UNSC, not with its backing.