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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (56404)	11/10/2002 1:20:32 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting blog from Eric Raymond: That bad old-time religion: It's official. The anti-war movement is a Communist front. laweekly.com No, I'm not kidding -- go read the story. Investigative reporter David Corn digs into last Saturday's D.C. antiwar rally and finds it was covertly masterminded by a Communist Party splinter originally founded in support of the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. For good later, he further digs up the fact that one if the principal organizers of the inane "Mot In Our Name" petion[sic] is a revolutionary Maoist. Words almost fail me. There are just too many levels of delicious, deadly irony here. For starters, the U.S. revolutionary Communist movement has been reduced to organizing demonstrations in support of a fascist dictator with a history of brutally suppressing and murdering Communists in Iraq. OK, so there's precedent for this; the CPUSA organized anti-war demonstrations in the U.S. during the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact of 1939-41. It's still bleakly funny. More generally the American Left seems bent on fulfilling every red-meat right-winger's most perfervid fantasies about it. All those earnest anti-war demonstrators were actual communist dupes! Oh, mama. Somewhere. Tailgunner Joe McCarthy is smiling. Who was it who said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second as farce? (Turns out it was Karl Marx...) Farce because, of course, Communism as an ideology capable of motivating mass revolutions is stone-dead. (Well, everywhere outside of Pyongyang and the humanities departments of U.S. universities, anyway.) At this point one can contemplate vestigial organs of Stalinism like the Revolutionary Communist Party with a sort of revolted pity, like portions of a vampire corpse still twitching because they haven't yet gotten the message about that stake through the heart. If I were a conservative, I'd go into a roaring, vein-popping rant at this point. And, secretly I'd be damn glad for them Commies. They simplify things so much. Because there will be more stories like this one. All the Communists can accomplish by organizing the anti-war movement is to thoroughly discredit it — a fact our reporter (quite typical of U.S. journalists in that he both leans left and is too ignorant to notice how much of his world-view is Communism with the serial numbers filed off) notes with poorly-veiled regret. So, by supporting a militarist fascist in Iraq, them commies are very likely to wind up increasing the influence of precisely the `reactionary' element in U.S. politics that they most abominate. Congratulations, comrades! Welcome to the International Capitalist Conspiracy! armedndangerous.blogspot.com

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (56404)	11/10/2002 1:33:33 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

story.news.yahoo.com World Sees Chance for Peace, Iraq Mum on U.N. Vote Fri Nov 8, 4:42 PM ET By Dayan Candappa LONDON (Reuters) - A relieved world welcomed Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq as a last chance to avoid war but Baghdad kept its cards close to its chest. The Security Council unanimously approved a tough resolution giving Iraq a chance to disarm or face serious consequences, ending weeks of tense diplomatic maneuvering by the major powers to avert a unilateral U.S. strike on Baghdad. The United States and Britain, which co-sponsored the resolution, repeated their threats of military action if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) failed to allow U.N inspectors to dismantle his alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But Washington's staunchest critics said their concerns about imminent war had been addressed. Fellow veto-powers Russia and France supported the resolution along with Syria, Iraq's Arab neighbor, while Germany hailed a victory for diplomacy. "The unanimous vote by the Security Council...offers a chance to disarm Iraq peacefully," French President Jacques Chirac's office said in a statement. France and Russia repeatedly blocked Washington's efforts to secure a mandate that would trigger war automatically if Iraq obstructed weapons inspections. But French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin hinted that Paris may take part in any military action against Baghdad should it become necessary. "If there were serious violations, obviously the Security Council would meet again and we would accept our responsibilities," Villepin told TF1 television. The complex resolution leaves the United States free to attack Iraq without Security Council authorisation as long as inspectors have reported or verified any serious Iraqi violation and the Security Council has evaluated the complaint. "There is no measure allowing the automatic use of force in the adopted resolution," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "It was possible to secure substantial change in the original draft and remove formulations unacceptable to us." NOT A WORD Crucially, Iraq kept the world guessing about whether it would accept the U.N.'s terms. Asked in Cairo if he had any comment on the resolution, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said: "No, not a word." Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohamed Aldouri said the resolution reflected "the will of the United States on the rest of the world" and said he was pessimistic the inspectors would ever be allowed to do their work. The council gave Iraq one week to respond to the motion, approved in a 15-0 vote that was a victory for President Bush (news - web sites) who has called for Saddam's ouster, accusing him of seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush had threatened unilateral action against Baghdad if the U.N. failed to act, a policy that ran into fierce opposition in the Arab world and even among some U.S. allies. But Syria, an old U.S. foe, said it had supported the motion despite reservations to preserve unity in the council. "We got assurances and confirmation at the highest levels from France and Russia...that there is no direct action against Iraq without a return to the Security Council," Imad Shueibi, a professor at Damascus University who is close to official thinking, told Reuters. The resolution also satisfied German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who angered Washington with his vocal opposition to war during his re-election campaign in September. "The decision...to go to the U.N. Security Council and to choose the route of multilateralism was thereby proved right," Schroeder said in a statement. Israel's Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (news - web sites) expressed support for the U.S. and British position in a telephone conversation with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, an Israeli statement said. Iraq denies developing weapons of mass destruction and agreed in September to readmit U.N inspectors who were withdrawn in 1998 before a bombing raid by the United States and Britain. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said he would take a crew to Iraq on November 18. Inspections are not expected to begin until after November 25. The U.N. inspectors have up to 45 days to begin work and another 60 days to report to the council on what they have uncovered. But they are obliged to report any obstructions by Iraq immediately. British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) echoed Bush's position that this was Iraq's last chance. "Saddam must now make his choice. My message to him is this. Disarm or you face force. Be under no doubt whatsoever of that."