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 (46399)	9/23/2002 2:20:57 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Yes, the precedent of unilateral and pre-emptive action is dangerous, but less so than inaction. The fact is, even under current international norms, Russia can take steps to deny Chechen rebels sanctuary in Georgia, although it is supposed to seek redress through the sovereign government before dealing with the matter by itself. In the case of the United States, there is no essential disagreement that Iraq is a rogues state, and that its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is cause for alarm by the international community, there is only disagreement over whether sufficient pressure can be brought to solve matters short of "regime change". Invasion would not be, by any means, a casual matter, nor would it be misunderstood as being solely a pretext by any but the ignorant or ideologically deluded. Of course, to the Administration, dealing forthrightly with Iraq is the key to unsettling despotic regimes throughout the regime, and rogue nations in other corners of the Earth, in order to resolve once and for all whether the United States is a paper tiger, or whether it should be heeded in its determination to promote a safer, more stable, and more democratic world order........

To: stockman_scott who wrote (46399)	9/23/2002 2:35:07 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Rumsfeld Lobbies Poland on Iraq nytimes.com Is this perhaps the punchline of some non-PC joke? Rummy seems to be in a jocular mood today, actually: Rumsfeld dismissed suggestions that the United States planned to intervene by itself in Iraq. ``Trying to promote and perpetuate the concept of unilateralism is not on the mark,'' Rumsfeld told reporters after meeting with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski at the presidential palace.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (46399)	9/24/2002 4:27:23 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

Are These Clowns Serious? >>"So far, there has been real frustration with the Russians," says Michael McFaul, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, who now also teaches at Stanford. "Before this, the White House especially assumed that Mr. Putin is our friend, that we are allies in this common struggle, and they were somewhat surprised [the Russians are] being so wishy-washy."<< Maybe they should be renamed “Carnegie Endowment for International WAR “.! Sheesh! >>Analysts dismiss talk of a US-Russia horse trade – Moscow holding out to gain a free hand in Georgia, in exchange for supporting US moves in Iraq. But the observers say Russia is ready to take advantage of the precedent set by any preemptive US strike.<< Goose – Gander.Predicted here long ago. >>"Russia is behaving absolutely logically," says Alexei Pushkov, member of the executive board of the Presidential Foreign Policy Council, a nongovernmental think-tank in Moscow. "Russia says that, 'Unless you have proof [of weapons of mass destruction violations], you shouldn't invade Iraq.' But everybody knows – and even the Bush administration admits – that there is proof of Chechen fighters in Georgia."<< Pooty Poot For President!! Har har I never in my life thought I would be agreeing with the Ruskies. Cosmic shifts are us. “>>Still, differences are fundamental, experts say. "The American position is a double one," says Mr. Pushkov. "George Bush speaks about WMD in Iraq, but in fact he is after Saddam Hussein." Russia, on the other hand, would accept a "technical" solution in Georgia, even if it left [Georgian leader Eduard] Shevardnadze in power. Such a solution would be unacceptable for the US in Iraq, he says. "If Saddam Hussein admits inspectors tomorrow, then the Bush administration will say, 'No, it is not enough,' " Pushkov adds. "Nothing is enough, short of war, because the problem is regime change."<< He’s got it nailed.