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 (80089)	3/6/2003 11:53:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Andrew Sullivan is on the mark here: A BRITISH COMPROMISE? Two British papers - the Guardian and the Times - are reporting that Britain may attempt to produce a different version of proposed Resolution 1442 than the simple one now envisaged. 1442 would actually delay war for yet another two weeks - until March 30 - with a clear deadline for complete Iraqi disarmament. Blair hopes, it is alleged, to win over a few waverers on the Security Council to get a majority. It's also argued that the Turkish balk has delayed the military timetable, so the extra two weeks don't amount to much. The problem with this approach is that it presumes reasonableness on the part of the Franco-German-Russian axis. But what Saddam has shown - rather brilliantly - is that even the slightest concession from Baghdad is enough for the appeasers to claim that the "inspections" are "working" (even though 1441 doesn't stipulate that the inspections should have any effect except verifying Saddam's complete and immediate disarmament). There is in principle nothing to stop this process from going on for ever. De Villepin has claimed that inspections cannot go on for ever, but has never proposed an end-date, or even a simple criterion by which one could measure whether they had failed. The truth is, I fear, that France, Russia and Germany simply want to keep Saddam in power and to humiliate the United States in order to build their own relationship with the Arab satrapies and pursue their own priorities in the region. If that's their game, no compromise will satisfy them, whatever the British think. So let them veto. - 12:17:32 AM WHAT "INCOMPETENCE?": In particular, the Euro-axis is alarmed at the consequences of a successful Iraq war on the broader Middle East. They are dismayed at the prospect of Israel being strengthened strategically, as they pointed out today in their press conference. They are terrified of Arab and Islamist militancy and are instinctually reluctant to confront rather than appease it. And they are equally concerned about the damage a war without U.N. support would do to their diplomatic leverage in the U.N. No new formula will change any of this. If I'm right, then the current neo-lib whining about the Bush team's alleged incompetence is partisan hooey. Josh Marshall and Fred Kaplan, who both support a war, nevertheless complain about alleged Bush administration "incompetence." It seems to me that both have to give some real reasons as to what the Bushies did wrong. They pursued a text-book U.N. strategy. The secured a tortuous U.N. Resolution which was passed unanimously. They won the Congressional vote easily. I'm unaware of any obvious military failings. If the impasse is because of the irredentist opposition of Germans to war under any conditions, then it's not Bush's fault. If it's because of a French desire to stymie American power, then it's hard to see what Bush could have done to stop this. If the French refuse to enforce a resolution they signed, why is that a sign of incompetence on the part of the Bush administration? My own view is that the diplomatic mess we're in is a function of world reality - and would be the same whatever administration was in charge. The Clinton administration avoided such a crisis because they avoided serious action to solve the problem. Personally, I'd rather have a crisis because we're doing something than a non-crisis that leads to still greater danger in the future.

To: LindyBill who wrote (80089)	3/7/2003 2:12:34 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi LindyBill; Re: "You still are operating with a lot of "False Premises," Carl." Do you mean false premises like these? (1) Turkey needs the money, so they will sign up to help us invade Iraq if we just give them a few billion dollars. (2) Trade with the US is important to Russia, so she won't veto our resolution at the UN. (3) Bush has good intelligence on where the WMDs are, so the inspectors will find them and everyone will sign up for the war. (4) Colin Powell is so well respected that the world will believe it when he says that Iraq has WMDs. (5) The French are just looking for a handout, they'll come around. (6) China doesn't care what goes on in Iraq. They'll stay out of the UNSC fight because they want to protect their trade with the US. (7) The Germans are only worried about domestic politics. As soon as their elections are over, they'll come in and support us. (8) Saudi Arabia uses our weapons, and needs to sell oil to us, so they will have to be an ally with us against Iraq. (9) With Sharon in power, terrorism in Israel will soon be a thing of the past. (10) Invading Iraq will only take a few hundred Special Forces. It will happen before the elections. (11) There's no way that Mexico wouldn't support the US against Iraq. (12) We can always depend on the Canadians to give us assistance in our righteous wars. (13) Bush is not a moron. There's no way that he would make mistakes like the above 12 points. -- Carl