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: ajax99 who wrote (20166)	3/13/2003 1:35:52 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

Gee, that's original. It;s been posted on SI at least twice and on this thread once previously.

To: ajax99 who wrote (20166)	3/13/2003 1:36:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Diplomacy's Last Chance Lead Editorial The New York Times March 13, 2003 With his political fortunes sinking at home, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain is doing his best to reunite the United Nations Security Council on Iraq. His efforts, though in need of some refinement, deserve strong American support because they appear to offer the last hope of forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily and, failing that, to ensure that any war with Iraq is sanctioned by the Council. President Bush worked the phones yesterday to lobby other leaders to support a new resolution, but Washington did not seem fully sold on the British plan. It should get squarely behind the proposal and give Britain more leeway to adjust crucial details. In its present form, the British proposal is not likely to win a Security Council majority of nine votes, let alone deflect the vetoes of France, Russia and maybe China. Britain's proposal would establish six disarmament benchmarks and a tightly limited time frame for achieving them. The benchmarks are generally right, but the time frames under discussion yesterday were unrealistically short, and the mechanisms for determining compliance need some modification. These defects reflect the conditional nature of Washington's assent to the exercise so far. Britain cannot plausibly offer more time or flexibility than it thinks it can sell to the White House. Unless Washington is willing to engage in serious diplomatic bargaining, the British attempt is doomed to failure. Only by negotiating crucial details are the hesitations of several of the six currently undecided countries likely to be overcome. And only with the support of all or most of these six can serious efforts be made to win over China, Russia and France. According to U.N. weapons inspectors, even if Baghdad offered full cooperation, complete disarmament of Iraq could take months. But the six tests Britain proposes could be completed much more quickly. Mr. Hussein would have to acknowledge that he has hidden unconventional weapons and pledge to stop producing or concealing such weapons. He would have to let at least 30 scientists, and their families, leave Iraq for interviews. He would also have to turn over all mobile biological and chemical weapons facilities, surrender anthrax stockpiles or demonstrate that they had been destroyed, finish eliminating illegal missiles and account for all unmanned aerial drones. Timing is a critical issue. U.N. diplomats believe that Washington will not agree to a compliance deadline beyond March 24. That clearly is not enough for France and Russia and probably not enough for several of the undecideds. The possibility of broader international support, if attainable, is worth waiting for. How to determine Iraqi compliance is also an issue. That is not a judgment that should be left to the United States to make alone. If a consensus can be reached on benchmarks and dates, it may be easier to agree on a mechanism for judging compliance. The ultimate goal should not be a symbolic Security Council majority of nine, but passage of a resolution without a disabling veto. That might still be possible. Washington will find out only if it makes the new British proposal the basis for serious negotiations. nytimes.com

To: ajax99 who wrote (20166)	3/13/2003 1:51:55 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 25898

William Blum has been a goodie for many,many years...

To: ajax99 who wrote (20166)	3/13/2003 9:03:09 AM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 25898

LOL. The question to first ask is: "In how many of these instances was a democratic government or representative constitutional republic, respectful of human rights the intended result of the military action?" Certainly, the actions against Libya, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan don't apply; with a bit more research, it may be the case that others in that list don't apply, either. At any rate, it's only then appropriate to ask, "In how many of the instances where a democratic government or representative constitutional republic, respectful of human rights was the intended result was this outcome realized?" Have at it. LPS5