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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (89690)	9/17/2002 12:50:58 PM
From: Stephen O	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 116785

Iraq Debate Ending Before Begins: Andrew Ferguson (Correct) 2002-09-17 07:49 (New York) (Commentary. Andrew Ferguson is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.) Washington, Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- In his United Nations speech last week, President George W. Bush proved again that he is a black belt in diplomatic jujitsu. So unexpected are his moves, and so deftly does he carry them out, that his opponents don't seem to know when they have suddenly been forced into a position of his, and not their, devising. You can see this in the almost-universal praise for his speech urging UN action to force Iraq to disarm. Hawks and doves alike declared themselves pleased. The skeptical French were happy and so were the gung-ho British. The gentle, bran-munching editorial writers at the New York Times cooed their approval, while their hairy-chested counterparts at the Wall Street Journal keened the same. Not all of them can be right. Someone must be mistaken. And it is not the hawks. They understand what has been done to the doves. With his speech Bush has turned the force of his opponents' argument to his advantage. And in so doing he has guaranteed that the war he desires is inevitable. More, he has ensured that it will proceed without substantial objection from critics at home or abroad. This was a neat trick. A New Debate He's pulled it off before. As the bloodletting intensified between Palestinians and Israelis last fall, critics demanded that the administration ``engage'' in the ``peace process,'' which is diplomatic jargon for an endless series of feckless negotiations that occasionally disrupt the violence. Only a recognition of a Palestinian state, Bush was told, could ``move the process forward.'' The demand was a rote re-enactment of a debate that has droned on for a half century. Bush's artful response was to concede its central premise. A Palestinian state, he agreed, is indeed the key to peace. But peace requires that it be a particular kind of Palestinian state. It must be genuinely democratic, dedicated to free markets and private property and willing to nurture the pluralistic institutions of civil society. Bush didn't change the terms of debate in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. He dispensed with the old debate altogether. And he substituted a new idea in its place, about the desirability and promise of democratic capitalism in a modern Palestine. Indicting Saddam He did something equally ingenious last week. Before Thursday, Bush faced the unappetizing prospect of a dreary debate about the virtues of multilateralism, as represented by the United Nations, in a world dominated by a unilateral power, the U.S. Would the American cowboy dare to go it alone and attack Saddam Hussein without the consent of the world community? Once again, Bush disarmed his critics by conceding their premise -- the paramount importance of the United Nations. The heart of his speech was an indictment of Saddam in terms that any multilateralist would cherish, and for violations that every multilateralist will abhor. Saddam's offense is not merely that he has gassed women and children, piled up biological and chemical weapons, and terrorized his neighbors and countrymen. It's that he's done all this -- and to the multilateralist mind the distinction is crucial -- in violation of UN resolutions. ``The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations,'' Bush said. ``Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?'' Alarm and Flattery Now, nothing frightens a UN diplomat so much as the possibility of being labeled irrelevant, unless it's the threat of losing his dinner reservations at Le Cirque. By framing the issue this way, Bush alarmed his audience even as he flattered it. He also put the multilateralists in a box they cannot escape. Consider what Saddam Hussein would have to do to comply with the UN resolutions: destroy all weapons of mass destruction and all his missiles; open his country to roving bands of foreign inspectors, including large numbers of foreign troops to guarantee their safety; end support for terrorism and actively cooperate in its suppression; and end persecution of minority populations and all other violations of human rights, as defined by the UN. There are a few other demands, but taken together they point to a single effect: to satisfy the UN's requirements, Iraq must relinquish its sovereignty. Saddam Hussein must stop being Saddam Hussein. Inversions and Statecraft And when Saddam declines to commit self-regicide? Bush's point was clear, though not explicit. The U.S. will have to act if the UN fails to. America's devotion to the honor of the international body demands nothing less. ``We want the United Nations to be effective, and respected, and successful,'' Bush said. If the United States has to act unilaterally to defend the sacred principle of multilateralism, then it will. This marvelous inversion is more than a rhetorical trick. It is also a masterful bit of statecraft that eliminates all courses of action but the one that Bush himself has already decided on. When the U.S. goes to war, it will take the UN with it. And the doves still won't know what hit them. --Andrew Ferguson in Washington (202) 624-1800 or aferguson2@bloomberg.net. Editor: Geimann, *Olsen.

To: Richnorth who wrote (89690)	9/17/2002 1:53:19 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116785

Well well lil ritchi. Good for you . You are finally starting to understand what I and others have been trying to get through to you since Sept. 11/01. Muslim/islam domination is the why of the war. Look even if you make it sound like you knew this all along is OK, just so you start to understand. I know it is very difficult for you to admit when you are wrong...which is just about always... but if you want to take the ideas of others as your own I guess that's ok for someone like you. This is what is expected from the likes of you. Until next time lil ritchi. Keep trying. Understanding may come to you yet...with the help of allah. :o)