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: stockman_scott who wrote (81079)	3/11/2003 2:03:19 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Blair warned of the need to show Iraq a united front> and <poll showed that only 15 percent of Britons would back war without a U.N. mandate> He sure has painted himself into a corner. He's committed himself, put his reputation and career on the line, and can't possibly find any face-saving way to back down now, even if he wanted to. And he's right, a nation does need to be united when it goes to war, especially a democracy. It does strengthen the enemy's will to fight, when they see disunity, especially very public disunity. When the shooting starts, the fewest of our soldiers will die, if every Iraqi with a gun lays it down, when he sees an American or British soldier. So anything that helps the Iraqis means more American and British casualties. So it makes me very uncomfortable, to be be saying "No War!", as we go to war. But Blair hasn't done what every leader of a democracy should do, before committing himself to war. He hasn't made sure the nation supports him. He may be sure, but that's not good enough, not in a democracy. In WWII, Rooseveldt didn't get the U.S. into the war, until we were attacked. There was total national unity after Pearl Harbor. You can make the argument that he should have led, not followed, public opinion, and got us into the war earlier, and things would have turned out better. But on an issue as important as war, a leader can't get very far in front of public opinion. And, with only 15% of Brits willing to go to war without a SC resolution, Blair is far, far out in front of public opinion. So he and Bush have put all of us in a position of either supporting a war we don't believe in, or helping our nation's enemy as we go to war.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (81079)	3/11/2003 3:12:37 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Has Saddam Lost the Arab Street ? Gary C. Gambill Rhetoric aside, Said is well aware that the muted reaction of the "Arab street" to the impending war with Iraq does not stem from either a lack of willpower or a lack of collective Arab identity. There is every reason to believe that the Arab masses identify strongly with their Iraqi brethren. But the Iraqi people want American troops to liberate their country. According to a recent survey of public opinion in Iraq by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), most Iraqis support an American invasion. "I found very few people who were against American intervention," said the ICG researcher who interviewed dozens of Iraqis in Baghdad, Mosul and Najaf for the study. The small minority of Iraqis who expressed opposition to American military action either had a direct stake in the regime or did not trust the United States to follow through on its pledge to oust the Iraqi dictator.9 Considering that the interviews were conducted in public places (e.g. a beauty parlor), where Iraqis are often reluctant to express opposition to Saddam, the ICG report probably understates popular support for the entry of US troops into the country. Another indication that an American invasion is viewed positively by Iraqis was the massive appreciation of the Baghdad stock market when the UN Security Council passed a resolution in November warning the Iraqi regime of "serious consequences" for failing to cooperate with arms inspectors. meib.org