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 (77571)	2/25/2003 8:13:56 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

I watched Rather on CBS last night - my opinion is : ho-hum, lets get the ratings up. cheers,kumar@verycynicalofTVthesedays.pov

To: LindyBill who wrote (77571)	2/25/2003 9:04:48 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>Cops get to gather all the information they want without ever having to be nice to people.<< Lawyers, too. I was on the interviewing end of several reporters this past summer due to a neighborhood kerfluffle over my bee hives. Any dreams I ever had of being a journalist went out the window when I realized that they had to be nice to me in order to get me to answer questions! Much more fun to use the rack and the Iron Maiden, e.g., litigation! ;^) But getting down on my knees and sucking up to Saddam would definitely not be worth it, not even for millions. On the other hand, I am interested in what he has to say. Too bad I can't just take his deposition! CB@theyallwanttotalk.yap

To: LindyBill who wrote (77571)	2/25/2003 9:24:15 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

The U.N.'s Final Opportunity BY JAMES TARANTO Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:18 p.m. EST The Bush administration has come in for some tough criticism over its decision to pursue a "second" U.N. resolution--actually an 18th or 19th, depending on how you count--on Iraq, when such a resolution appears to face insurmountable opposition in the Security Council. Over the weekend Richard Holbrooke, Bill Clinton's U.N. ambassador, weighed in on the Washington Post's op-ed page, arguing that a Security Council rejection of the resolution would be "humiliating" and "would leave the clear impression that any military action that follows is in violation of the Security Council's will." Holbrooke says the U.S. should have simply acted under the authority of November's Resolution 1441. The Wall Street Journal seconds the point in an editorial today. There's another way of looking at this, though, and it begins with the assumption that the new resolution isn't really about Iraq but about the U.N. itself. Morally and legally, America and its allies have every justification to liberate Iraq, with or without another Security Council resolution. This will be just as true in the face of a Security Council rejection, for the council's failure to pass an 18th resolution does not invalidate the previous 17. President Bush shows every indication of sticking to his promise to liberate Iraq, so the U.N. is deciding only whether to endorse U.S. policy or register an impotent protest. Because Bush has made Iraq a test of the U.N.'s relevance, not to ask for another resolution would be to let the Security Council off the hook. It would give the French (and others) the luxury of being able to protest American "defiance" of the "international community" without the responsibility of taking a formal position. The draft resolution Britain introduced yesterday is a minimalist one, and it's perfectly suited for America's purpose of testing the U.N. Nothing is new in the proposed resolution except for a statement of the obvious: "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it [under] resolution 1441." Everything else is a reiteration of what the U.N. has already said. It's the easiest possible pill for America's diplomatic adversaries to swallow. If they balk anyway, they will do maximal damage to the U.N.--and thus, especially in France's case, to their own standing in the world. After such a rejection, an American-led liberation of Iraq would be a humiliation to the U.N., not the U.S. Of course, not everyone agrees. Here's a New York Times "news analysis" by Patrick Tyler: "A more realistic view is that any collapse in support at the United Nations will radiate out into a world already roiling with opposition to war. In that case, once war is under way, any significant setback in Iraq is likely to conjure up some of the ghosts of Vietnam, fairly or unfairly." We'll say this for the Times: It's a neat trick to engage in defeatism and wishful thinking at the same time. opinionjournal.com