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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (3077)	2/28/2002 10:55:39 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Where are we going and why? Sunday, February 24, 2002 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Since his designation of Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union speech, President Bush has once again come under deserved fire for being unilateralist in his approach to international problems. Whether unilateralism is warranted in these three cases is very much an open question. The perception that an arrogant United States doesn't care about any opinions save its own was buttressed by, of all people, Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he subsequently proclaimed that this country might have to "go it alone" to change regimes in Iraq. Bush's bellicosity gives rise to nagging questions: Does the administration know something far more imminently alarming about these countries than it's sharing with the citizens who pay the bills for our nation's military adventures? If so, Bush cannot ignore the danger. Or is this targeting of designated enemies simply a ploy to keep the nation on its war footing and Bush on point as commander in chief until he is re-elected? If so, it is a cynical, dangerously destabilizing political game. Are our European and other allies right to criticize as profoundly foolish Bush's effort to widen the war on global terrorism? Or are they simply weak-kneed appeasers? Heaven knows North Korea is an unpredictable basket case worthy of the closest scrutiny; it's a country that's not tethered to reality. It's harder to understand why Bush chose to pick on Iran, where a moderate regime is engaged in a difficult, delicate effort to modernize the country. Iran is hardly to be held free of censure, but there are signs that it's moving in the right direction. Calling Iran evil played into the hands of its religious immoderates who use hatred of the United States to build support for their policies opposing modernization. So chances are high that Bush's tough talk may backfire in Iran. Iraq is a more complex case. It's unfinished business for the United States and its allies in the Gulf War -- not to mention the Bush dynasty. The allies let Saddam live to fight another day because they preferred to cope with the devil they knew and because they assumed he'd soon disappear. It was a costly miscalculation, especially for Iraqis, who have paid most dearly under his barbaric regime. Saddam thumbs his nose at the terms of his surrender, such as allowing inspections for weapons of mass destruction. And the United States and its allies let him get away with it. If that tactic is to change, Bush must build his case against Saddam with hard evidence showing why it's urgent that he now be removed. And once removed, U.S. citizens need to know what reason the administration has to believe that someone capable of ruling more humanely will succeed Saddam. And will this administration, so adverse to nation-building, be willing to station troops in Baghdad to assure that Iraq's days as a terrorist state are over? Or should we expect a replay of Afghanistan, where the United States refuses to put enough boots on the ground to ensure a civil society can take root? Hit-and-run wars on terrorism without follow-up nation-building are ineffectual. They risk leaving a vacuum where more terrorists can thrive. seattlepi.nwsource.com