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: JohnM who wrote (46957)	9/25/2002 7:38:31 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Wow, Talk about a "Personality Cult!" The real meaning of "Your Sh*t doesn't stink!" Snippet from "Reason" >>>>>North Korea has been taking measurable steps toward joining the civilized world. As Reuters reports, these include "unprecedented events such as starting to reconnect rail and road links through the heavily mined North-South border, steps to reform its near-moribund economy and moving to improve ties with long-time foes, notably Japan." Specifically, North Korea has officially apologized to Japan for kidnapping close to a dozen Japanese citizens in the late 1970s and '80s as part of a bizarre plan to train spies. North Korea is also opening a second free trade zone and begging the U.S. to begin normalizing relations. While the North Korean government had shown signs of liberalizing over the past decade or so, there's no question its inclusion in George W. Bush's "axis of evil" has pushed forward reform measures. North Korea's motives are undoubtedly mixed?and its history is one of unmitigated horror against its neighbors and its own citizens. But for a politically autistic country that has sustained the planet's most bizarre trans-generational cult of personality (a recent refugee noted in his memoir that he and his friends were raised to believe father-son dictators Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il were such "perfect beings...that neither of them defecated or urinated") and whose chief output for decades has been starving children, this represents real progress. Indeed, if the Hermit Kingdom actually opens up and joins even the pre-modern world, it will represent one of the great foreign policy successes of the Bush administration.<<<<<<< reason.com

To: JohnM who wrote (46957)	9/26/2002 4:25:40 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Safire's take on Gore's speech: eptember 26, 2002 Gore Versus Blair By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON ? Al Gore's speech in San Francisco attacking the Bush pre-emption doctrine was the opening gun in the 2004 presidential campaign. His initial charge was that the U.S. military could not do two things well at once: "multilateral cooperation in the war on terrorism can be severely damaged in the way we go about undertaking unilateral action against Iraq." The U.S. should not "jump from one unfinished task to another." Thus the former vice president made it possible to appear to be tough on terror without seeming to go soft on Saddam. He even recycled a 1999 Clinton budget slogan: "First things first." By arguing that the removal of Saddam would delay, rather than speed, vengeance for Sept. 11, Gore offered hawkish-sounding political harbor for multilateralists, pacifists and others unworried about Saddam's secret buildup. Gore also stirred partisan passion by charging the president was using war talk for a political purpose by "demanding, in this high political season," a Congressional resolution permitting him to strike Iraq, and for operating "in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right." His imputation of political motive was followed by a delicious demurral, worthy of the dark side of my old boss: "I have not raised those doubts, but many have." So far, an artful antiwar polemic. But then Gore's speech made a sudden lurch toward unilateralism, as if he reminded himself that he might be president one day. No new U.N. resolution is required, he said, for the U.S. to lawfully attack Iraq: "Existing U.N. resolutions, passed 11 years ago, are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint, so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements" ? a dozen breaches that not even U.N. officials dispute. Further stressing presidential power, Gore gave a recent example to prove that a unilateral strike into a sovereign country to destroy dangerous weaponry is well within international law. "The Clinton administration launched a massive series of air strikes against Iraq for the stated purpose of setting back his capacity to pursue weapons of mass destruction." (This was in the prepared text released by algore2004.com. Two other texts I have seen differ.) Maybe most of us forgot the precedent set by that "massive series of air strikes," but Gore reminded us that if the U.S. decides Saddam presents an imminent threat, "we would be free to act" in self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. charter. Even if that threat is not imminent, "there is a case to be made that further delay works to Saddam Hussein's advantage" though "hurrying the process would be costly" in terms of international support. But in his conclusion, the hawk changed its feathers: evidently he rewrote this speech feverishly, changing his text on delivery. "The concept of pre-emption" ? just used to justify Clinton-Gore's "massive" bombings ? could be used by India against Pakistan, Russia against Georgia. "What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law," Gore warned, "particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States." That was some zigzagging. Al Gore is a man of wide experience whose advice deserves to be taken seriously. But at a moment calling for decisiveness, he is, in Churchill's phrase, "resolved to be irresolute." He referred to Prime Minister Tony Blair as "getting into what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of supposed doubts about Bush's motivation. By so doing, Gore crossed swords with an un-wobbly ally not conflicted about the coming conflict. The day after Gore's self-contradictory pushmipullyu of a speech, Blair presented a 50-page dossier from British intelligence detailing the dangers to the world from Saddam, including evidence of his present possession of "mobile biological weapons facilities." "Should Saddam continue to defy the will of the international community," Blair told the House of Commons in a speech that contrasted starkly with Gore's, "this House, as it has in our history so many times before, will not shrink from doing what is necessary and right." nytimes.com