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: Sig who wrote (79176)	3/5/2003 11:59:42 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Confining this to the immediate problem of Iraq, there is nearly complete agreement even among Arab nations that Saddam should be displaced as the soul voice and for the reasons stated. There is nearly complete agreement that Saddam is a problem, even outside the region. The question is not whether Saddam is a problem, but what are the appropriate means to deal with the problem, and, even more, what is the appropriate method of determining appropriate means. The French , however have the most to lose per capita if he is displaced because they would probably lose the sole right and present agreements to develop one of Iraq's most important oil regions. This is not an issue of the US vs. France, and it should not be made to appear that way. My own view is that the dispute between the US and France has less to do with France’s oil interests in Iraq than France’s desire to fill the leadership vacuum that the US is creating. The US could also argue that our trade is more important to other nations than it is to us When Russia has a bad growing season , access to our wheat or corn can save much starvation Africa is in desperate shape without access to our Aids drugs and so on. However it is very easy for other Nations, preferring not to admit to the usefulness of trade with the US, to look upon it as profiteering, something we do internally in regard to fuel prices and electric costs in California I didn’t say that the trade of any nation is more important to the US than it is to the other nation. What I said was that given the global nature and exposure of US trade, the US has a strong vested interest in creating and preserving the kind of worldwide conflict resolution framework that can only be provided by multilateral agreements. Iraq has broken those rules for over ten years and through 18 Resolutions and the UN is still in a quandary as to what should be done about it, even while being 100% in agreement Iraq has violated and still is violation the rules If they object to the US voluntering to enforce the rules they should either change the rules to make them non-applicable to rogue nations or set up an enforcement agency to carry out military action when that is the only action which would force obedience to their rules. I don’t think those are the only options. The US is not exactly “volunteering” to enforce the rules, it is insisting that it should do so, in whatever way it sees fit. The US had the choice between showing real leadership, by proposing a sequence of steps of increasing severity aimed at enforcement, or showing pique, by abandoning the process and proceeding directly and unilaterally to the ultimate sanction. And that of course, would establish a World Leader who would have to appoint some nation to execute the proper military action for which they would have set up another set of rules. So now we have N Korea resigning from the UN and threatening the world with nuclear confrontation. Which country would the UN appoint to handle the problem?. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There doesn’t need to be a “world leader”, and there does not need to be a single nation appointed to deal with any given case. Let’s not exaggerate the Korean situation, either. They have not threatened the world with nuclear confrontation. They have announced the capacity to threaten a portion of the world with nuclear confrontation, and the capacity to deter nuclear attack. There’s a difference, and that difference is critical.