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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (5361)	2/7/2003 12:57:31 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

Sorry for the late response to your post. Again, I've got nearly 300 in my inbox, together with limited computer time. Now, on the point. Vitas, here's a more rational view as to the implications of Resolution 1441: >>>"...Resolution 1441 is ambiguous about the use of force. The US and UK believe it commits them to a new round of Council deliberations if Iraq fails to cooperate, but not to waiting for a new authorization before acting militarily. Other members insist that a new resolution is necessary. This deliberate ambiguity is a potentially lethal source of division, but for now the Council has sent a surprisingly strong signal that, one way or another, the obligation to disarm will be enforced. Despite Iraqi obstructionism, the inspections did achieve a lot between 1991 and 1998. They can work again, if the threat of force is credible and seen as commanding broad international support, and the inspections are not seen as a set-up for military action no matter what."<<< pbs.org What ultimately it comes down to is what members of the Security Council, especially the five veto-carrying members, think. Of the five, only the US is steadfast. Even Britain's Blair admits the second resolution is the ideal tool. washingtontimes.com cbc.ca alertnet.org