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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (17474)	3/8/2003 12:43:03 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

>>> didn't c-span cover it?<<< Foxlette, if you were attempting to control what the public hears, would you feel good if CNN, MSNBC and Fox didn't broadcast what you didn't want the people to hear? I don't think you and I have to go to far in order to determine the extent of C-span's viewing audiences as measured to the aforementioned 'Big Three.' >>>didn't the newspapers cover it?<<< So what if they did. Are you downplaying the power of television, especially live event broadcasts? >>>isn't it more an issue you have with the press and who they chose to cover?<<< No. It's my firm belief that Powell's going live before the press was intentionally meant to divert the American public from hearing what the Iraqi ambassador was presenting to the United Nations Security Council. >>>if you're about to go to war with a country, if you're angry and frustrated with their behavior and policy, no, I don't think you have to sit and listen to what you would consider pure rhetoric.<<< So much for intellectual discourse or a fair presentation of intelligent material that most thinking people would deem worthy in order to formulate opinion. I guess, you're right, it doesn't matter. People in America only have a right to one opinion only, the Administration's, especially in a matter so serious where sons and daughters of America will be facing the grim reaper on a battlefield, a battlefield that considered opinion of the populace might otherwise might not have made possible.

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (17474)	3/8/2003 7:36:12 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Do not worry, not the first nor the last time, and exactly one of the reasons C-SPAN was founded. As well as a regular topic on C-SPAN, but treated with respect. Sometimes like the Trent Lott - Strom thing, which only C-SPAN covered too. However, C-SPAN has been fought in many ways during the decades, to limit the number of possible viewers. --- The problem actually that Powell was the one who arranged, or agreed to the press release, if he needed to go out he could have waited with it until the end of the session. That is, government and especially the administration can be expected to have some responsibility of not playing too much media-games, for most networks it is a must.

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (17474)	3/8/2003 4:38:05 PM
From: Volsi Mimir	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

“strategy of impotence” The very best speech I thought was Ms. Palacio's and I loved Jack Straw blowing up the French ministers balloon of fantasy of diplomacy rules over force with regards to the Butcher. ANA PALACIO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that on 14 February she had hoped to hear that Saddam Hussein had been unconditionally complying with inspections. However, she had not heard that. Nor had she heard that today. Today, the Council ran the risk of “not seeing the forest for the trees”. The concrete progress achieved by the inspectors and the gestures made by Saddam Hussein were distracting the international community from the objective set 12 years ago, namely, the complete disarmament of Iraq. The international community had been marking time for 12 years. There were two questions she wanted to address: “Were we discharging our responsibility as members of the Security Council” and “what message were we sending to the world?” Twelve years later, she said, the threat remained. Saddam Hussein had still not complied with the Council’s resolutions; the scenario was the same as that in 1991; the main actor remained the same; his attitude was still a profound disregard for international law; and his strategy remained the same. How much time did it take to decide to cooperate? While many knew the answer to that question, they chose to ignore it. The Council ran the risk of becoming a media platform to showcase its differences. Saddam Hussein was achieving something dangerous by identifying the Council with the role of aggressor, while making himself out to seem like the victim, and shifting the burden of proof to the Council’s shoulders. “How did we arrive at that situation?” Turning to the second question –- the message to be sent by the Council –- she said that only maximum pressure or a credible threat of force had any effect on the Iraqi regime. That was the underlying element of resolution 1441 and the second draft resolution introduced by the United States, United Kingdom and Spain. The weapons did exist. The Council should send the message that it would not tolerate any more of Saddam’s games. The Council had to give a clear message and stop playing hostage to those seeking to attain their own ends. The complete disarmament of Iraq was not a matter of more inspectors or more time, she stated. That, in the words of a French thinker, was a “strategy of impotence”. Up to now, Iraq had given no signs that it was willing to disarm.