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: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (17901)	3/9/2003 12:42:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

The Lead Editorial from Sunday's New York Times... Saying No to War Lead Editorial The New York Times March 9, 2003 Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no. Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally devastating to the American position. They not only argued that progress was being made, they also discounted the idea that Iraq was actively attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons. History shows that inspectors can be misled, and that Mr. Hussein can never be trusted to disarm and stay disarmed on his own accord. But a far larger and more aggressive inspection program, backed by a firm and united Security Council, could keep a permanent lid on Iraq's weapons program. By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve. Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N. operation. Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger, tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the troops home. Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy. He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the administration. Every signal from the White House is that the diplomatic negotiations will be over in days, not weeks. Every signal from the United Nations is that when that day arrives, the United States will not have Security Council sanction to attack. There are circumstances under which the president would have to act militarily no matter what the Security Council said. If America was attacked, we would have to respond swiftly and fiercely. But despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn't there. The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region. It is natural to suspect that one of America's enemies might be actively aiding another, but nations are not supposed to launch military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence. The second argument the Bush administration cites for invading Iraq is its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm. That's a good reason, but not when the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work. If the United States ignores the Security Council and attacks on its own, the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations itself. The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about how we had to destroy a village in order to save it. President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several times. Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to follow suit. That's another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside the context of broad international agreement. The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both seductive and extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick. Given the corner Mr. Bush has painted himself in, withdrawing troops — even if a considerable slice remains behind — would be an admission of failure. He obviously intends to go ahead, and bet on the very good chance that the Iraqi army will fall quickly. The fact that the United Nations might be irreparably weakened would not much bother his conservative political base at home, nor would the outcry abroad. But in the long run, this country needs a strong international body to keep the peace and defuse tension in a dozen different potential crisis points around the world. It needs the support of its allies, particularly embattled states like Pakistan, to fight the war on terror. And it needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is that you do not invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons. When the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable propositions, it's time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your goals. nytimes.com

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (17901)	3/9/2003 12:55:35 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Bush?s ulterior motive Is a three-letter word behind the Iraq war plans? By Michael Kinsley SLATE.COM March 6 ? How has an attack on the United States by a terrorist group based in Afghanistan led us to war against Iraq? Why are nuclear weapons in Iraq worth a war but not nuclear weapons in North Korea? For most skeptics about Gulf War II (including me), the Bush administration?s failure to answer these two questions sincerely or even plausibly, let alone convincingly, is central to our doubts. THIS ISN?T entirely reasonable. The battle could be worth joining even though George W. is unable to explain why. The 9/11 pretext may be phony without necessarily invalidating the whole exercise. As for Iraq vs. North Korea, following the right policy in one place is better than following the wrong policy in both. There are worse things in this world than logical inconsistency. Furthermore, it is hard to dismiss the official reasons for this war as disingenuous without some theory about what the ulterior motive or unspoken war aim might be. George W. Bush is not taking the nation into war to avenge his father or as a ?wag the dog? strategy to win re-election, as Bush?s more cynical opponents have charged. He deserves more credit than that. Nor is he planning to conquer and occupy Iraq in order to bring human rights to the Iraqi people or start a chain reaction of democracy throughout the Middle East, as he and his supporters have lately augmented the official war aims. He doesn?t deserve that much credit. The one ulterior motive everyone seems to agree on is ?oil.? But what does it mean? This three-letter word covers a variety of contradictory arguments. Some supporters of the war say that our dependence on oil from the Middle East is what makes the removal of a madman in Baghdad more pressing than the removal of a madman in Pyongyang. Some opponents make essentially the same argument, but with a negative spin: Because of America?s insatiable appetite for Middle East oil, untold thousands will die so that SUVs can keep sucking gas. While these two oil variations assume that conquering Iraq serves at least the short-term interests of the United States, another set of conspiracy theories has it that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, oilmen both, are betraying America?s national interest for the benefit of the oil industry. Here, too, the details cover a conflicting variety of sins (or rather, conflicting variations on the single sin of greed). As a seller, does the oil industry want higher prices for its product? Or as a buyer and importer, does it want lower prices? Does it long for stability, or hunger for new opportunities that might emerge from the chaos? And how will the war affect the price of oil anyhow? That price has been going up in anticipation. But when the war is successfully over, Iraqi oil will probably reduce prices, unless Saddam destroys his own oilfields, which will have the opposite effect. General stability in the Middle East, if it is achieved, will guarantee steady supply and reduce prices even further. But if the war sets off a chain reaction of chaos and instability in the Middle East, that will raise prices even higher. So, what do oilmen want? msnbc.com