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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GST who wrote (149382)10/29/2002 10:27:11 AM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
I don't think his views on "serious consequences" will matter at all to Russia, China and France. The only policy these countries can support is "disarm or else".

Umm, could you humor me with another patient explanation? What is "or else" if not serious consequences?

BTW, there's another interesting opinion piece in the WSJ today. "Our Friends at the U.N." addresses the growing irrelevance of the UN, resulting from their own vacillations and tendencies toward appeasement of tyrants.

"...Among other phrases, the countries object to declaring that Saddam is in "material breach" of earlier U.N. resolutions. Iraq has spent the past decade expelling U.N. arms inspectors, as well as trying to rearm with the most dangerous weapons possible, and this isn't a "breach" of disarmament promises? What is it, a foot fault?"
...

"The end of the Cold War gave [the U.N.] a chance to become a moral and strategic force in the world, and during the Gulf War it briefly looked like it might fulfill that promise. But the U.N. has since reverted to a lowest-common-denominator "multilateralism" that can't even enforce its own resolutions. The U.N. was feckless in the Balkans, with peace imposed only through NATO military power. Its most notable achievement in recent years was bouncing the U.S. off its Commission on Human Rights in favor of Libya, Syria and Zimbabwe."