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: greenspirit who wrote (44146)	9/15/2002 2:07:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven Den Beste has a good blog praising the combined effect of Bush's June 24 speech with Thursday's UN speech. The June speech freed Bush from the Israeli/Pal diplomatic quagmire, and the UN speech made it clear that Bush intended to use multilateralism to suit his aims, not ask for its permission. denbeste.nu Excerpt: The key point of the speech was to prove that every possible approach to Iraq short of war had already been tried and that they had all failed miserably. There had been condemnations. There had been fierce scowls aimed at Iraq. There had been sanctions. There had been attempts at diplomacy. And in saying all of this, he made clear that this was a watershed test for the UN. But he didn't promise to actually subordinate American policy to UN decisions, and made clear that America still reserved the option of acting unilaterally in this, if the UN didn't live up to its responsibility. In the two days since then, the majority of the world's leaders have stopped looking at the US and started looking at Iraq. The chorus of denunciations of us has declined to almost nothing (with a couple of notable exceptions). But the pressure on Iraq has climbed palpably. The world's leaders have stopped asking each other "What are we going to do about the US?" and started asking each other "What are we going to do about Iraq?" It's a stunning achievement, a masterstroke. ... And around the world it has finally sunk in: Bush doesn't care what they all think. Months of public condemnations and abuse have rolled off him like water off the back of a duck; his apparent inaction was simply because the US wasn't logistically ready to act and had nothing to do with their attempts to dissuade him. They're realizing something important: they can be on the train, or dragged behind it, or fall under its wheels. But they can't stop it.

To: greenspirit who wrote (44146)	9/15/2002 5:08:23 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Compared to 10 days ago, when 71 percent of the public said they opposed a unilateral American or British attack on Iraq, the new YouGov poll showed 95 percent backing for a deadline for U.N. inspectors to be given full access to Iraqi weapons sites, and 80 percent for U.N.-backed military action if Saddam refuses. Under these circumstances, 75 percent said Britain should contribute troops. In Britain? I knew Bush's speech was good, but not that good! He really hit exactly the right note. Royal Air Force tankers have been essential to the Afghanistan air operation, particularly for U.S. naval aircraft. I posted an email, a few months ago, from a Naval Pilot, on how much they preferred to be fueled by the Brits compared to our tankers. Looks like Blair is going to be able to whip them into shape.