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: stockman_scott who wrote (43702)	9/13/2002 1:18:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Permit me to take an contrasting view to this columnist (hitting major points). He was rhetorically effective in trying to shame its members into standing up to the dictator who has repeatedly defied the United Nations' wishes. Indeed. And it was a VERY smart move. If Kofi Annan wants "multi-lateralism" then it's only logical for the US, as one of the founding members of the institution, to point out that resolution after resolution (binding) regarding Iraq have been ignored by Saddam's regime. Annan wanted the UN to have a say, and Bush has placed the UN in a VERY tenuous situation. Either they enforce their binding resolutions and quit relying upon the US and Britain to "contain" Saddam, or we'll go it alone and prove how worthless (rotten) the UN structure is. Further, it will reveal the UN as the paper tiger that is truly is, or a slightly better cliche.. "the emperor has no clothes".. he did not propose, as many of America's allies wish he would, one more try at tough and intrusive inspections. That's the negotiating point. Bush has nothing to lose by "caving in" and agreeing to a VERY intrusive inspection regime. There is reasonable expectation that Saddam's regime could not survive such a political humiliation, so Bush would obtain the regime change he seeks, and neutralizing Iraq as a potential threat for some years to come. Let the inspectors return.. backed by some serious "teeth" and the threat of unilateral action by the US. Is this the best way to build alliances and unite the world against a dictator who deserved every bit of the harsh criticism Bush hurled his way? One has to ask where that "alliance" has been over the past 12 years with regard to upholding the UNSC resolutions against Iraq? And why have only a select few nations been required to bear the cost of that "containment"?? Like it or not, the suspicion would always exist that a war vote was being pushed for political purposes, to influence this fall's elections and to box Democrats into voting to give Bush what he wants or face charges of "softness." And what's the political motivation for waiting past November elections?? A lame-duck congress who's defeated members will not have to answer for their voting record in the period before the next congress is sworn in?? Does Mr. Dionne actually believe that congressional constituents currently lack the ability to contact their representatives and voice their opinions? Is he really trying to convince us to ignore the polls that so many politicians live their careers by?? And I seem to recall another president who launched "Desert Fox" in the midst of an impeachment hearing against him. Personally, I'm beginning to believe we won't see a war until next year, if at all. Bush is maneuvering the UN into actually doing its job. And I say "who cares" if he has to play "hardball" to do it. Hawk