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: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (53308)	10/20/2002 1:01:54 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Their track record indicates they won't. << Yet they did in the Gulf War 1. >>The Cheney-Condi-Rummy tri-axis has not been booed off the stage by a majority of the American people. << My reference there was with regard to their unilateralist “ war now “ approach that was decidedly rejected in all public opinion polls, with about 70% disagreeing with their position.They backed off considerably from those positions once they realized they would never get public support. >>Bush is acting to change momentum, to alter the status quo. << Agreed, and as I’ve stated here before, even though I didn’t agree with the methodology, the momentum is in the right direction, but we will never know if a different more diplomatic approach would have had the same positive effects.My other concerns being how the use of blustering with few facts on the ground to back up his assertions would affect future concerns when/if things get rough.The boy crying wolf story comes to mind. >>re the idiots in Iraq: the only possible way to prevent them from making whatever moronic claims they feel may serve their purpose is to take their microphone away.<< No doubt.Let’s see how this plays out when the inspections begin. >>I think the world will fight terrorism because terrorism will ultimately give it no other choice. << Yes.I wasn’t saying it wouldn’t,but again, merely observing that international co-operation is vital to a successful campaign.The more unified the international community appears and acts, the more powerful that alliance becomes in the psycho game the terrorists like to play. >>How we deal with Iraq will have no practical impact on other nations' willingness or desire to combat terrorism.<< As above, it is important to be consistent and not APPEAR to be running off on selective wild goose chases.The Iraq situation maybe somewhat of a distraction, and the perception of disunity in discerning who the real enemy is may not be helpful.The attempts to tie Iraq to the Al Q’s without convincing evidence doesn’t help, and tends to add confusion in an already bad situation where the main perpetrator is trying to do an Elvis Impression. >>>Therefore to suggest that the UN will [actually, in fact] gain credibility and respect through debate and continuing to write resolutions that it has no will, power, means, or possibly even intention to enforce on its own, while at the same time the United States will lose credibility and respect because it does have the will and the means to enforce it, is to daydream, in my view. <<< Again, we are not that far apart on this.But theUN, as the World’s facilitator to international co-operation, needs to be in the loop,if only for legitimacy’s sake at the outset.To dismiss it as potentially irrelevant on a timetable being dictated by it’s most important member was cause for concern, and I can’t say it was of any benefit to go that route at this time. Regarding will and means to enforce, I have said here before that the UN needs teeth, otherwise it CAN become,if not already, the proverbial toothless dog.I would prefer that over irrelevance. How to go about that transformation, I don’t know off hand tonight, but I think it would be a positive towards more international co-operation, especially for concerns such as international terrorism. Anyway...looking forward to McCain on SNL tonight. Take care. KC