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: zonder who wrote (51116)	10/11/2002 12:02:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

To consult is to talk with others. If one has reached a decision, but decides to consult with others, that means one is willing to keep an open mind. But, if after consulting with others, one does not hear anything which causes one to change one's mind, one sticks with one's initial opinion.

To: zonder who wrote (51116)	10/11/2002 12:06:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine - You have a strange perception of "the allies" interpretations. Could you explain a little why you are convinced that all these allies who now refuse to get in line behind the US in this quest against Iraq equate "consulting with allies" to "volunteering to self-emasculate American power"? This goes back to the argument over whether coalitions are ends in themselves, or just means to an end. It is in the interests of the much weaker coalition partners to persuade the US that the coalition is a Necessary Good in and of itself because this gives the coalition partners a veto over US actions. Such a coalition will do little, but will restrain US power. It is in the interest of the US to define coalitions as a means to an end so that its power is not emasculated by its "allies". The allies have been consulted and given their chance to make their arguments, which the US found unpersuasive. "Consult" is an ambiguous word; it does mean "listen to", which implies "considering other opinions" but it does not mean "obey" -- though naturally those being consulted will try to give the word the last meaning if they are able. Steven den Beste has some comments pertinent to this subject, and some predictions worth noting. Speaking of Congress' passage of the Iraq resolution, he predicts: We will now observe one of those marvelous paradoxes which keep appearing in politics. Since Bush won't require UN authorization for war, he'll get it. If the bill which passed Congress had included a requirement for UN authorization, it would not have happened. Isn't political logic grand? If the Senate does approve the House language for the bill as now seems likely, then it will become evident to the members of the Security Council that the train is going to leave the station, and they can be on it or under it. With an authorization for war not requiring UN approval in his pocket, Bush will be far less subject to attempts at extortion by the veto powers, and they will recognize that refusing authorization will only harm the UN without any commensurate benefit. UN approval will still be useful, and Bush will be willing to pay a small price to get it, but he doesn't require it and he is in a good position to negotiate. But if Congress had required Bush to obtain UN approval, then the veto powers in the Security Council would have had him up a tree, and would have attempted to extort huge concessions in exchange for their votes. ... In another of those marvelous political paradoxes, you're now going to see a lot more cooperation internationally. Denunciations will become rare and quiet, and offers of assistance and progressively more vocal support will appear. This is a critical political event for another reason: it will deflate those around the world, especially in Europe, who had still entertained the conceit that we actually cared what they said and that they could still influence the course of events by lecturing us. By its act of ignoring international criticism and obstruction today, Congress will actually encourage more international cooperation and less criticism and obstruction. Because there is no requirement for a coalition, there's going to be one. But in practice it's going to be "invitation only", because there are a lot of nations out there whose presence in such a coalition would not be an asset. (Did I mention France?) All of the rhetoric until now about "international law" and "alliances" and "treaties" and the UN were moves in a game. The purpose was to convince Congress to cripple Bush's hand in the diplomacy game, thereby giving other nations a stronger position to use against us, or to use for their own benefit. And just as with the UN, the leaders of various nations around the world will now know that they, too, can either be on the train or under it. Where before this vote it was in their own best interests to try to be as loud as possible in opposition, it will now be in their best interests to try to cooperate. http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/Iamrelievedandafraid.shtml p.s. I have always found your English fluent. What is your native language?