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 (70138)	1/29/2003 11:29:14 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi paul_philp; Re: "You are sneaky ... an unsupported assertion, tsk, tsk." This is a personal attack. I'm ignoring it, but you should be ashamed. Especially since I'm right and you're wrong, LOL. Re: "the President said that we would go for a 2nd UN resolution" ... I admit that I didn't listen to the President's speech, or even read it. I was relying on what Steven den Beste wrote (which you yourself quoted): So maybe the idea is to use the request for the second UNSC resolution as a way of aiding Blair in the European power struggle by shoving Germany and France into a corner and forcing them to unequivocally decide whose side they are on. If a formal resolution authorizing combat is proposed, and if we refuse to delay a decision, and if we refuse to let it be amended, then eventually they have to go on the record as to whether they support Saddam or support us. If the promised presentation about Iraq to be made by Powell is much more damning than what was intimated tonight, then it could allow us to cast the argument in terms of "supporting a vile torturing dictator" instead of "opposing war because war is always wrong". And in that case they're damned either way, because if they vote for a resolution after all their rhetoric they'll look spineless, but if they vote against then they can be painted as supporting a murderous torturing dictator. But here's the relevant portion of the President's speech: ... The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. ... cnn.com I agree with Steven den Beste's interpretation of this. The threat to "lead a coalition" is ancient news. What is new is the decision to seek a UN security council resolution. This is a retreat from previous administration statements to the effect that a 2nd resolution is unneeded, and it is also consistent with my long standing observation that an attack on Iraq would require extensive allied support. So my comment stands. -- Carl P.S. No need to apologize, you are forgiven.