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: paul_philp who wrote (68916)	1/26/2003 1:32:20 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Powell fails to woo sceptics news.bbc.co.uk Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary. "When Mr Powell speaks, he is always impressive," Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania told BBC News Online. It was great to hear him explain how, once in a while, in the face of intractable evil, you have to act Stephen Kaufmann US-based Arrow Electronics "But if they are so sure of the evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why have they not produced it?" The US should ask why its Iraq policy has proven so unpopular worldwide, he said. "Their position is based on the supremacy of democracy. When you see them not waiting to hear the opinion of others, I am afraid it will undermine their case." 'Bad news' A senior Irish cleric said Mr Powell's speech was "a very good presentation of US policy," but it did not explain why there is an immediate danger. "And there is the question of proportionality if you are mandating military action which could have enormous humanitarian implications." From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak. "What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news." Aviation is typically one of the sectors worst affected by conflict, increasing fears of foreign travel. Praise for Powell But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech. "He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together." Stephen Kaufmann, chairman of US-based Arrow Electronics, said: "It was great to hear him explain how, once in a while, in the face of intractable evil, you have to act. "And to say how America, when it does use military power, follows it up with humanitarian and nation-building measures." However, Mr Kaufmann, who lived in the Netherlands for a year, doubted whether many sceptics of US policy were won over by the address. "Some people have got fixed ideas. They have this mindset that the US is trigger-happy, and nothing Mr Powell could say would change that."

To: paul_philp who wrote (68916)	1/26/2003 1:47:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

The argument that Saddam has WMD is clear but it is inferred logic and it is hard to send people to war based on inference. The flip side of the WMD argument - what will Saddam do with nukes once he has them - which I think is the strongest argument for 'why now,' is also inferred. No wonder the French are so blasé about a nuclear-armed Saddam. They know perfectly well that they won't be expected to deal with the consequences. We will. And that would suit them just fine. Keep the hyperpower busy, eh?

To: paul_philp who wrote (68916)	1/26/2003 2:12:07 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

The decision to pursue the WMD line of justification is simply a marketing program. Based on the resuls to date, it has not been an effective marketing program. One of the interesting, but momentary, items to me right now is why the administration thought the Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice argument would work. The argument which says that Saddam did not voluntarily comply with the inspections regime, therefore we should attack. Clearly that argument went nowhere. But what's curious about it is that they choose it after making the principle component of their argument over the past several months to be some sort of the "evil" person argument. It appears that argument has made it into the public consciousness, at the moment again, and all these polls tell us how shallow the support is for any options. But, if you convince folk that he is "evil," why would you assume we would all be startled that they wouldn't voluntarily disarm. Puzzling, very puzzling strategy.