SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bilow who wrote (50709)10/10/2002 4:49:41 AM
From: D. Long  Respond to of 281500
 
Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "We want one new resolution, France wants two, Russia doesn't want any. The French proposal is the clear middle ground. Anybody care to guess where this will wind up?"
This is hilarious.

Neither Russian nor France want a resolution threatening military action, but you use the question of how many resolutions to write to suggest that our position is the compromise.

-- Carl


Funny. I thought CB was clear enough that the French position of two resolutions was the compromise.

The mind of an engineer at work. :P

"One" resolution is not a compromise of "none" and "two"!

Derek



To: Bilow who wrote (50709)10/10/2002 8:06:03 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Derek is right, I was saying the French solution is the one we'll probably settle on. I don't think Russia or France will sign on for allowing the US to decide all on its own whether Saddam has been cooperative.

Bush has made it clear that if the Security Council doesn't force Saddam to allow the inspectors free and unfettered access from the very beginning, he's just going to go in anyway. That's my reading, anyway. The buildup you call "wagging the dog" costs too much money and political capital to be a game.

The French have proposed the two part solution from the beginning. The Russians won't like it but they'll go along with it.

JMO

Bonus question - what will Saddam do?