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 (64463)	1/5/2003 2:47:05 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The US has a strong hand in the UN negotiations as Resolution 1441 does not require another UNSC vote; it only promises "consultations", which they will receive. If the Bush administration makes it clear that they will go forward with or without the UNSC vote, don't you think that makes a positive vote a bit more likely? It will be interesting. Many of the council members have interpreted the results of those negotiations to mean there will have to be something like a vote. The Bush folk will be in a pickle if they and the British are the only ones in favor of an attack; if the numbers increase, their legitimacy increases. So I interpret the vote requirement as only legalistic. As for whether the council votes positively if they perceive the US will go whether they agree or not, it's hard to say. I suspect it will all be in the details. I'm frankly less interested in this, save it will go to the question of the relative legitimacy of the invasion, than, now that the Bush folk have made it clear they are going whatever, what will be the consequences of going if they have little legitimacy, and whether they will take the task of rebuilding Iraq seriously. Ignatieff's argument that the "soft power" issue is a large one needs to be taken more seriously by the Bushies.