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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (64131)	1/2/2003 9:54:11 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree, in part, with what the Economist pointed out. However, I differ a bit on the implications of an Iraqian war versus a North Korean war. How so? Moving militarily into Iraq could fan the hot flames all throughout the MidEast, most of which fires glow harshly upon Israel. A conflict in Iraq could inspire Arab nations to move militarily upon Israel. Remember, we're not knocking the Iraqis out of Kuwait--we're taking over the entire nation of Iraq, sorta like what Iraq did to Kuwait. Yes, the spillover into South Korea is a real and possible threat and could, if utter failure prevails, involve a potential use of nuclear weapons, a very convenient tool when a national leader who has such technology becomes desperate. But also yes is the possiblity that the MidEast could flare into a larger conflict than a simple U.S.-British vs. Iraq event. Regarding the breaching of U.N. resolutions, one has to also consider that Israel has been in such violation. This fact invariably could complicate and perhaps aggrevate potential widening of a MidEast conflict, started by a war with Iraq. And I think the leaders of most MidEastern nations hold this position. I think it's also interesting to note, as some may have forgotten, that the U.S., under Republican administrations, has had a checkered past relative to the United Nations whether it be from withholding money; pulling out of UNESCO or getting booted from the UN Human Rights Commission. nald.ca globalpolicy.org Heck. Our nation doesn't even like the world court: news.bbc.co.uk

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (64131)	1/2/2003 11:27:18 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

WORLD VIEWS: Bush dubbed Man of the Year in the U.K.Mr. Bush's most significant achievement of the year has been to defend a course of moderation and multilateralism." (Okay, but let's see him try to pronounce "multilateralism") ; by Edward M. Gomez, special to SF Gate Thursday, January 2, 2003 The United Kingdom's Financial Times (registration required) has chosen George W. Bush as its Man of the Year for 2002, citing "the manner in which [Bush] has accumulated and exercised authority, reshaping the domestic political landscape, setting his stamp on the international agenda and pursuing U.S. interests around the world with America's allies, rather than despite them." Pouring the praise on thick, the paper gushed, "Followers of the U.S. presidency have been searching the annals to find a president to match his achievements. In 2002, Mr. Bush came to be measured by the standards of Harry S. Truman." Admitting that Bush "is not a master of detail," the Financial Times went on to claim that "outside the U.S., Mr. Bush's most significant achievement of the year has been to defend a course of moderation and multilateralism." With the Man of the Year citation came a prediction: Watch out, the paper said, for a Bush "dynasty" that is poised "to oust the royal Kennedys" from their place in the history books. * * * *