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 (195748)	8/7/2006 4:18:57 PM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The UN did not invade Iraq -- that was a US-led action conducted outside the UN. The UN doesn't have an army, silly.. Nor should it. The UN did not authorize it. If you read the fine print which I think you are hiding, says that enforcing the resolution needs approval. Can you explain why did Bush also approached NATO?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (195748)	8/7/2006 4:23:09 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The US did not merely "take a chance" by taking a resolution to invade Iraq to the UN and failing to win support. The US tried and failed to get the UN to sanction an invasion and made clear in doing so that this would not be a UN action -- there is no place where enough squirming and wiggling on your part is going to change that. <Saddam's regime represented the interests of> His regime was the recognized government of Iraq. His regime was a brutal dictartorship, like so many of the ones we cosy up to all around the world. So long as he served our interests he was perfectly acceptable to us. Like the current "elected" regime, he used torture and death squads and violence to suppress the people -- the main difference between him and the current bunch is that he used violence more effectively to create a semblance of civil order.