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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (153262)	2/19/2003 10:21:55 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Below is a different view on Cheney. Powell, whom I respect very much, sought cooperation from the U.N., but has failed to produce it. Cheney wanted to move on Iraq from the beginning without worrying about the U.N. The author below argues that we are now in a worse position to go forward by having asked for approval of the U.N., but not getting the approval, then if we had just maintained from the beginning that we were not worried about U.N. approval. Regardless of your intense dislike for Cheney, you have to admit that the U.N. has proved to be a totally, ineffectual, spineless organization with regard to backing up and enforcing its resolutions. The minimal "progress" in Iraq with regard to inspections, which still falls short, can be credited solely to the American war buildup, and no credit at all can be given to the spineless U.N., which has done nothing for twelve years, and even today is still unprepared to back up its resolutions. Dick Cheney Was Right Last Friday's U.N. reaction to Hans Blix's latest inspections report on Iraq complicates U.S. diplomacy, but it does have one silver lining: It is clarifying once again that the world body is incapable of living up even to its own resolutions, much less of enforcing world order in a post-September 11 world. These columns have been hopeful the U.N. would be able to prove its post-Cold War relevance. Multilateral groups have their uses, as NATO has proven over the decades, and as even the U.N. has shown when it has followed American leadership (Korea, the Gulf War). President Bush challenged the U.N. to honor its own charter once again, doing everything that Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac requested and siding with the advice of Tony Blair and Colin Powell that the U.N.'s imprimatur would make disarming Saddam Hussein that much easier. The U.N. Security Council went along in repeating its many disarmament demands, but now that it is time to enforce them it is heading for cover in the French countryside. The U.N. is itself proving that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were right in their debate with Mr. Powell over the utility of U.N. inspections. Mr. Blix's evidence for declaring that the inspections climate has "improved" in a month's time was almost a parody of compliance with Resolution 1441: The number of Iraqi minders for inspectors has recently changed to one-to-one from five-to-one. Iraq has begun to consult South Africa for insight on what disarmament would entail. The Iraqis have decided to allow a couple of scientists to be interviewed by inspectors, albeit in downtown Baghdad and not outside of Iraq where they and their families would be safe from bloody retribution. And, of course, after 12 years Iraq has now finally passed a law banning weapons of mass destruction. These were his best points. It isn't Mr. Blix's fault that these are the only details of cooperation he could provide. But the fact that the French, Russians and others hailed them as serious shows how unserious the Security Council is about enforcing Resolution 1441. The French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, says all of this proves that inspections need more time. And the unusual U.N. cheers Friday for Mr. de Villepin from the delegates should have been embarrassing, if a body that puts Libya in charge of human rights were still capable of being embarrassed. The conclusion Saddam will reach from those cheers is that he is now winning the battle inside the U.N. He will assume he can dribble out more such signs of "progress" before Mr. Blix's next report, playing the U.N. for even more time and hoping in the meantime that antiwar protests grow in size, that Mr. Blair's government falls and that the weather turns hot enough to become miserable and dangerous for U.S. troops. The French want the U.N. to wait until March 14 for at least one more Blix report, and are vowing to veto any second resolution offered by the U.S. and Britain before that date. So be it. It is impossible to persuade the unpersuadable, and if there is a veto Mr. Bush will have every right to do what he said he would do all along and enforce 1441 with whatever nations are willing to help (and there are many). With the U.N. abdicating its role, the U.S. is the only force on the planet capable of disarming the world's terror-supporting states. Because of that superpower status, the U.S. is also now a unique target, something that many Europeans don't seem to appreciate. Europe may think it has left its own religious and nationalist wars behind (the Balkans excepted), but too much of the rest of the world still lives by Hobbesian rules. Someone has to prevent the emergence of nuclear- and biological-armed chaos. The best response to this weekend's antiwar protests is for the world to see Iraqis welcoming American and British troops as liberators. And the only useful "inspections" will be the ones conducted by those same troops as they search for plans and stockpiles once Saddam is deposed. The U.S. will have to live up to the U.N.'s Iraq promises, even if the U.N. itself refuses to. Updated February 18, 2003 online.wsj.com

To: GST who wrote (153262)	2/19/2003 10:49:01 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Having posted those two articles, I am still very uncertain and unconvinced whether the U.S. is doing the right thing or the wrong thing. I am quite worried and praying that this administration has a clue what they are doing. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go out and protest the war, so I guess that makes me a less than enthusiastic supporter. There seem to be no painless solutions at this point which one can enthusiastically embrace. As far as tending to blame all future terrorist actions against the U.S. on whether or not we attack Iraq, I think this is incredibly naive and unfair. I think the terrorist acts are coming regardless of whether we invade Iraq; we are well beyond any point where Clintonesque appeasement can help the situation. In the long run, a show of strength and resolve, might just help the situation. JMO, Huey