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 (68929)	1/26/2003 2:36:32 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I sincerely doubt that, unless your hypothetical non-Bush had some real magic up his sleeve. This isn't about style, it's about interests It's definitely about style when we are talking about the degrees of freedom afforded to the French and German governments. Increased anger at Bush (which is both style and substance) decreases their ability to manuever. . . . the French are afraid of untrammeled US power. Most of Europe is afraid of a terrorist backlash and have decided that police work and appeasement of Arab governments is the best way to go. Add these interests together, and you can see why most of Europe is more interested in confronting the US than confronting Saddam. The first sentence is right; the second misses the point. There are any number of strategies, given the first sentence, that might be played by the French and German governments. However, given the popular anger at Bush, those are reduced to a precious few. As for the essay, the question right now is not whether he has them but whether the Bush administration can convince the US public and a sufficiently large number of other countries (hopefully, even the UNSC) that he not only has them but is an imminent threat. That one is in the endgame. Particularly, if the Bush administration plans to invade in March, at the latest.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68929)	1/26/2003 3:12:57 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, Part of the job of wartime leadership is winning the propaganda war. Right now, Saddam is winning that particular battle. The opposition does not need a good argument against war, raising doubt is enough. Bush needs to counter with an emotional, moving and inspiring case for the war. He needs to frame it in terms of the highest American ideals, he needs to show that the threat is real and relevant, he also needs to separate the 'French values' from 'American values' (in more diplomatic language). One of the jobs of a leader is managing the confidence of the people they lead. Right now, half-truths and false arguments are gaining momentum because the country's confidence is waning. The intellectual appeal of the Rice/Wolfowitz argument is not nearly enough. I saw Tom Daschle on TV say that "we should give the inspectors more time to find WMDs". Daschle knows better but he has the confidence to make political hay right now. He needs to be put into a box where he cannot make these cheap shots. "We cannot stand by and allow tyranny torture it's own people, undermine the peace of the entire region and threatened the security of America. If there others with different priorities, we wish them well, but America will not abandon the possibility of peace of the dream of democracy - not now, not ever. We will fight on the dunes, on the gulf, we will never tire and we will never surrender" It is time to reclaim the high ground. Paul