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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (317250)	11/9/2002 2:13:02 PM
From: JEB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The face of power, the raw, real power of Bush's America By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 09 November 2002 In the space of a few minutes yesterday, two starkly contrasting faces of power were on view: diplomatic power, clothed in the formulaic rites of the United Nations Security Council, and raw, real power as brandished by President George Bush in the Rose Garden of the White House. For a moment, surveying the placid scene at the Security Council, or reading the nuanced legalistic language of Resolution 1441, you could believe the vote was the unqualified opinion of 15 like-minded nations, rather than what it really was: a document, amended a little to be sure, but conceived and driven through by the US to permit Washington to take military action against Saddam Hussein should it unilaterally decide to do so. The resolution speaks of "serious consequences". Mr Bush was far more blunt. The Iraqi leader had to extend "prompt and unconditional" co-operation with the weapons inspectors, or he would face not merely "serious" but "the severest" consequences. The doubters on the Security Council may take solace in the absence of "automaticity" of any military attack should President Saddam disobey. But Mr Bush put that assertion in context. Nothing would impede America's freedom of action. Nor will the President tolerate nit-picking when the council discusses future obstruction by Iraq. There could be no "unproductive debates over whether specific instances of non-compliance are serious. Any Iraqi non-compliance is serious". Yesterday capped a fantastic week for Mr Bush, a Republican election sweep followed by his most important diplomatic victory. The President without a mandate has been transformed into one of unquestioned dominance. Yesterday's UN vote, like analogous ones in Congress before it last month, underline how much the world's diplomatic landscape has changed in the 12 years since Saddam Hussein challenged the United Nations by invading Kuwait. The cause then would seem far more clear cut than today; the reversal of an invasion of a neighbour, flouting every international law, compared to a preventive strike of dubious legality to forestall a threat which many people believe does not exist. But in 1990, Russia and China abstained, and Yemen and Cuba voted against force to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This time, the Security Council voted unanimously. In 1990 President Bush's father only narrowly prevailed in his war powers vote in the Senate, but Congress this time gave its approval by three to one. There are three reasons. A new post-11 September urgency in dealing with a perceived terrorist threat; a greater readiness of the US to use its military might after quick, low-casualty wars in the Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan, but, first and foremost, the overwhelming power of America in a world whose best interests it believes it represents. Those who oppose America, do so at their peril. The scene at the White House brought to mind the maxim of Al Capone, a figure who Mr Bush's foes abroad might liken him to: "You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot further with a smile and a gun." Except that at in the Rose Garden yesterday, while the gun was sticking out of the holster, there was no smile. The US military build-up continues in the Gulf. "The full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur," Mr Bush flatly stated. Who is to disbelieve him? news.independent.co.uk

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (317250)	11/9/2002 2:14:15 PM
From: FastC6	Respond to of 769670

Go take your anti-war crap to another thread chickensh*t.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (317250)	11/9/2002 2:34:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"It's a scandalous resolution," said Sean Murray, 29, a member of a group called the Workers' Revolution. "It proves once more that the United Nations is a puppet of America, Britain and France and is not an institution that's there to serve the interests of the world's people." Could anybody tell me what this "new left" stands for, aside from the sovereign right of Saddam Hussein to possess nuclear weapons?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (317250)	11/9/2002 2:40:13 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Kenneth, the question is why don't any honest Americans with common sense care? Why do you care? Fact there is no War to protest at present. Fact a clear and definitive path of surrender is open to Iraq that will prevent any War. Iraq has the opportunity to fire the first shot or not. That's what PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH's UN victory says. So what the hell are they protesting anyway. Are you like your congressmen up there and believe Saddam is to be trusted and your President is not???? Who cares what a bunch of retards in the third world are whining about.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (317250)	11/9/2002 3:43:26 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 769670

It is easy to be anti-war when 3000+ of your people haven't been bombed to dust. Just like it is easy to be pro-choice after you're born. M