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: LindyBill who wrote (75630)	2/19/2003 2:47:57 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It won't be that "Binary," as John would say. A more "Nuanced" version would be that the UN and NATO will becomes less important, and we assemble an alliance of willing Democracies to join us in the "4th World War." The UN, as usual, will come running after us to get on the bandwagon. Interesting post, Bill. My take is that the Bush folk are convinced they must cram an Iraqi invasion into this year because of US election cycles. They will attack Iraq sometime this spring and live with the alliance consequences. My own take is that they will have very little strong support--Britain, Spain, Italy; small country weak support; very little overt support from Arab countries. Almost everything in terms of public support will follow from how that invasion goes. With one caveat. If it goes well, they will still leave a much larger residue of strong anti-Bush, perhaps even anti-American sentiment around the globe than they found when they came into office. Whether it's worth it or not will take some time to tell.

To: LindyBill who wrote (75630)	2/19/2003 3:14:56 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It won't be that "Binary," as John would say. A more "Nuanced" version would be that the UN and NATO will becomes less important I didn't use 'fail' in the sense of collapse but in the sense of not meeting the challenge. It is interesting to watch the anti-Bush folk react to the 'war marketing' issue. They see the answer as watering down the Bush doctrine, compromise principles to buy the support of other countries. That way lies madness, IMO. The issue is that the Bush Doctrine isn't being sold and it isn't being made clear that Iraq is the first use of that doctrine not the entire doctrine. Paul