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.

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

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (149684)	11/6/2002 11:23:14 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

The UN vote should come soon -- the outcome is likely to hinge on the central issue of whether or not the resolution is an extension of US policy on regime change or whether it is viewed as a legitimate policy of disarm-or-else. The UN cannot possibly back a regime change policy -- but perhaps some verbal assurances will be given by the US that the issue will go back to the UN Security Council one more time for a second vote if Iraq does not play ball and before the US actually invades. However, if the US is planning on a January invasion no matter what Iraq or the UN does, then this will not likely be a concession that Powell can offer. If the US is planning a January invasion, then the UN quite rightly will view this as a US attempt to steam-roller the Security Council. This would be nothing more than cynical manipulation to get UN backing for what is otherwise an almost universally unsupportable policy -- the unilateral US regime change policy. I saw a funny cartoon with a guy in a US army tank and a guy in a suit standing in front of the tank holding a small UN banner. The US guy says to the UN guy "get out of the way if you don't want people to think you are irrelevant".