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: greenspirit who wrote (79384)	3/4/2003 12:06:48 AM
From: k.ramesh	Respond to of 281500

Allies pour scorn on Canadian Proposal From London Times BRITAIN and the United States are working behind the scenes to squash a Canadian-backed UN compromise. The Canadian proposal calls for a deadline of March 28 for Iraq to fulfil a list of “key remaining disarmament tasks” drawn up by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector. If put to a vote, the Canadian plan could win majority support on the Security Council and force the US into a veto. That would leave Britain in the position of deciding to go to war not just without a new resolution authorising action, but with a US veto overriding a potential compromise. The Canadian plan, favoured by Chile and Mexico and other swing voters, depends on Dr Blix being asked to publish “key remaining disarmament tasks” soon instead of waiting for his current March 27 deadline. France, Germany and Russia also want Dr Blix to publish the list for their own initiative, which envisages setting clear tasks without a specific deadline. Dr Blix said in a report on Friday that the 170-page document, which contains 29 “clusters” of questions for Iraq, could serve as a useful “yardstick” of Iraqi co-operation. But he has privately told advisers that he is reluctant to publish it early unless asked by the full Security Council. A US official said: “When we said immediately disarm and they did not immediately disarm, we do not think it is helpful to jump to ‘key remaining disarmament tasks’.”

To: greenspirit who wrote (79384)	3/4/2003 12:50:06 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

should defend my free speech right to call them a peace-nik and disagree with their point of view. I think the term has a distinctly communist sound to it and I also believe that you would not be happy with characterizations of the President's supporters as Brown Shirts or that sort of nonsense. What do you think? --fl@itcutsbothways.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (79384)	3/4/2003 11:43:55 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

On the peace-niks comment, Michael, your comment is, and you will not like this, fairly typical of folk who would consider my reply to you a PC comment. They argue that by pointing out the use of the term peace-nik is a put down, is meant to signal that opposition to the invasion of Iraq has no serious basis, just frivolous, that I am taking away your free speech rights. And, of course, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with your use of the term. You can use it. It's simply demeaning and should I turn around and use some equivalent term to characterize your positions, you would yell. As for opponents of the war being " . . . hypocrites who never raised a banner of protest when Hussein was torturing thousands, and murdering the Kurds on a genocidal level of brutality," we should look at that statement. The murder of the Kurds, depending on which time frame you are using, was under a Rep President; the murdering of the Shiites in the south was under a Rep President. Definitely doesn't make it right; but calling folk who are protesting war now, hypocrites is a bit of stretch. Perhaps you might better wish to call almost everyone hypocrites when it comes to Iraq. As for being willing to protest torture, murder, and the like around the globe, that's been something the left has been far more likely to do than the right.

To: greenspirit who wrote (79384)	3/4/2003 1:08:19 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<hypocrites, who never raised a banner of protest when Hussein was torturing thousands, and murdering the Kurds on a genocidal level of brutality.> It was 1988 when Saddam broke the taboo against using chemical weapons. There was a Republican Administration in the White House. What was their response? They tut-tutted, and sat on their hands. And that non-response continued through the following Democratic Presidency, and continued into the next (Republican) Administration. What was Bush#2 doing about human rights inside Iraq, before 9/11. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. Total non-response. What's happening now is, the Adminstration has decided to go to war (for reasons that have nothing at all to do with human rights), and they and their supporters are trotting out each and every plausible justification for war on Iraq. A shotgun approach. All this talk about human rights, is just for PR purposes. Which ought to be clear, when you read how we are negotiating away Kurdish oil and Kurdish self-determination, in our bargaining with the Turks. It is very possible, that what happens to the Kurds if we allow the Turks into N. Iraq, is a lot like what happened when the Israilis allowed the Christian militias into the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. Nobody has forgotten Sharon's role in that massacre, and nobody will forget or forgive Bush if we allow a Kurdish massacre. The Turks are quite capable of this.