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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (149312)	8/8/2002 8:24:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579893

I will be nice and remind you that Bush Jr does not have a UN mandate to attack Iraq. I will also remind you that he does not have a coalition at all. In fact, his "coalition" is on the other side of the fence unconvinced. Bush 43 does not require a UN mandate, nor a coalition. The ceasefire of UNSC Resolution 687 called for Iraq to accept unconditionally the removal of specified weapons (WMD) and to submit to inspections by UNSCOM. Iraq is in default of the ceasefire agreement. Now, Bush may go through the formality of getting UN approval, but he doesn't need it. The argument is closed when Bush says, "IRAQ agreed to do this in order to end the military campaign. They lied. They didn't do what they said they would. Now, we must enforce the ceasefire.". That's really the entire story. However, I suspect Bush will seek and receive UN approval for whatever actions are taken. But it really doesn't matter. WE are the people funding the enforcement. THEY are in violation of the agreement. Bush can do as he chooses in this respect. Again, the circumstances today are substantially different from those 10 years ago. Ten years ago, we [appropriately] were representing the interests of Kuwait and the Saudis. Today, we are representing our own interests. So if Bush decides not to seek UN approval, it really isn't a problem, nor is it in anyway inconsistent. Ten years ago, we were ostensibly protecting the interests of other countries. Now, we're protecting our OWN interests, as well. This fundamentally alters the nature of the conflict. One other point relates to the "coalition". I'll agree there isn't a strong coalition at this point (us, Great Britain, Israel, Turkey, a couple others....). But NOW isn't the time that matters. If Bush feels a stronger coalition is essential (and I'm not sure it is), then he'll be able to get it when the time comes. When it boils down to it, the Arab countries are going to recognize that if they rebuff our requests to participate, they may well end up on their own after we have once again defeated Saddam. Next time he moves against them, we may not be willing to support THEM. Over the coming 20 years, as oil becomes less and less important to us, and the region collapses into what amounts to a giant Arab-Civil war over water rights, perhaps we'll stand back and let all these hostile nations do themselves in. I hope I'm still around...