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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (14634)	3/15/2003 7:05:13 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Warring with church, too? By Daniel Schorr Commentary The Christian Science Monitor from the March 14, 2003 edition csmonitor.com WASHINGTON – It was an astonishing intervention by the Holy See at a moment of high tension. Interviewed last month by John L. Allen Jr., Rome correspondent of the American National Catholic Reporter, Archbishop Renato Martino, a close adviser to Pope John Paul II, said he had heard that 100,000 body bags had been unloaded at the US naval base at Sigonella, Sicily. The archbishop, who is president of the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, did not say where this word had come from. The Pentagon would not discuss it when I called last week. An official, who asked not to be identified, said, "We are doing what needs to be done ... some of the planning is unpleasant and best discussed in only the most general terms." The Vatican has opposed wars in the past - specifically the Gulf War of 1991. But the campaign against invading Iraq is being fought with a new level of passion. The pope has seized several public events, like noon blessings, to warn of the "grief and grave consequences" that violence against Iraq may lead to. The pontiff gave an audience to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and sent a cardinal as emissary to Baghdad, bringing the pope's message of peace. Pressing his personal crusade, the pope sent Cardinal Pio Laghi, the former Vatican ambassador in Washington and a Bush family friend, to warn the president that, without UN sanction, the US was heading for a war that the church would consider both illegal and unjust. Almost explicitly, the pontiff was rejecting the principle of preventive war, on which Bush administration strategy is based. The 40-minute meeting between the president and the cardinal was apparently vehement. The former nuncio was said to have pointedly asked Mr. Bush to consider whether he was doing all he could to avoid a war. The sharp disagreement was not simply a matter of doctrine. The president has reached out to Catholic voters in America and presumably has reason to worry about the political effects of a breach with the Vatican. The Vatican, on the other hand, expressed concern that war with Iraq would deepen the chasm between the Islamic and the Western worlds. If there was any hope that church and state would reach some accommodation on the Iraq war issue, it was not evident as the president prepared to act. • Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.

To: Bilow who wrote (14634)	3/16/2003 2:10:14 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

America wants war, all the rest is window dressing The Independent 16 March 2003 argument.independent.co.uk It is very hard to feel anything but cynicism this weekend about the diplomatic posturing that is taking place in the Azores. The leaders of the United States, Britain and Spain are meeting, they claim, to seize the last chance for peace; yet few will see this as anything but the first step to war. Minds are closing, and positions – rhetorical and physical – are being entrenched. At some point in the next few days, it seems almost certain that a vast aerial assault will descend upon Iraq. Shock and awe, the American military planners call it, and both shocking and awful it will surely be. We have consistently argued that it would be wrong to go to war. This is not because we believe that war is always wrong, nor because we see any virtue in Saddam Hussein's regime, but because we believe that this is an unjust and unnecessary war. Mr Blair plainly believes in the justice of his cause, and George Bush frequently reminds us of his own "moral clarity". Yet shabby theatricals and disingenuous nonsense accompany the final steps towards war. When Jack Straw says that he fears conflict is close, this is cant. Of course it is, because Mr Straw and his colleagues are about to unleash it. The air is increasingly thick with this sort of hypocrisy; it is another sign that war is coming. So we will hear talk about the role of diplomacy while the bombs are already falling, and the same spokesmen who now urge the importance of another UN resolution will also deny that it is necessary. This is the war for peace, in which we have to destroy Iraq to save it. And the "peace summit" in the Azores brings together only those countries that back war: the US, Britain and Spain. Conspicuously absent will be France, the nation that has argued most consistently against the American position. Yet France has played a decisive role in the past week, wielding the threat of the veto to great effect. Its motives have not been entirely pure – France has commercial interests in the current Iraqi regime's survival – but nor are they as shady as its opponents allege. Crucially, Jacques Chirac is responding to French public opinion, which – like that in most of Europe – is absolutely opposed to a rush to war. Whatever the motives he also has a strong case. Why go to war while the UN inspectors are making significant progress? The feeling in Britain that Mr Blair decided on war long ago has fed a pervasive sense of cynicism. So has the sense that America is dictating the military timetable, and that all the rest is window-dressing. The arguments about weapons of mass destruction have always had an air of unreality – regime change in Iraq has quite clearly been the point from the outset. It is quite natural to feel cynical in this situation, but it is also dangerous. The protests against the war, the arguments that have been made, the letters that have been written, may have failed; but that does not mean the cause was wrong nor that commitment has ceased to matter. In the days to come, there will be a desperate need for opponents of war to remain engaged – because it is important to work for a more lasting peace in the Middle East, because it is important to care about what happens to those who will suffer, because the war will end and the settlement that follows must be just. In particular, it is crucial that the US lives up to its responsibilities and its stated intentions, and pushes for a revival of the peace process. Mr Bush's renewed interest in a "roadmap" for peace is encouraging. But he insists that first, the Palestinians must reform their leadership by selecting a new prime minister. It is critical that efforts to restart the peace process do not founder, and all the more so as the region prepares for yet another devastating war. This is a war in Iraq, about Iraq and its future. Perhaps it will end with a better man in charge in Baghdad, and perhaps peace will indeed be found in Mr Bush's "roadmap". But many innocent Iraqis will die in the coming weeks, and no amount of regime change can justify that. Iraq has suffered so much in the last 20 years, and we cannot turn away from its people now. This war may not be in our name, but we bear the responsibility for it nonetheless.

To: Bilow who wrote (14634)	3/16/2003 3:47:52 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Even the 'pro-war' Washington Post is asking Bush to consider a compromise...Why can't we wait a 4-6 weeks and work to recruit a STRONGER international coalition?...Does Bush know anything about effective diplomacy...? Damage Control Lead Editorial The Washington Post Sunday, March 16, 2003 WE HOPE the summit today in the Azores will offer a way out of the impasse on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But the flurry of activity at the White House on Friday, when President Bush's meeting with the British and Spanish prime ministers was abruptly confirmed, looked more like damage control than serious diplomacy. Even while announcing the summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer flatly ruled out the most plausible compromise formula for a U.N. resolution, which would involve a 30- to 45-day postponement of any military campaign. Mr. Bush, meanwhile, shifted the focus toward his postwar strategy, announcing his support of a "road map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hours later, the White House summoned reporters for a briefing on plans for an interim Iraqi administration. It appears the stage is being set not for more diplomacy but for war -- a war the United States will enter with less support than it should have. Military action to disarm Iraq appears to us both inevitable and necessary, because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with repeated U.N. disarmament orders. Still, we have argued that the United States would do well to agree to a delay if it seemed likely to lead to greater international support, including most of the countries on the Security Council. The Bush administration appears inclined to act with a considerably narrower alliance -- thereby exposing key allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair to grave political peril -- rather than hold off for a few weeks. That increases the risks and potential costs of an Iraq campaign, as well as those of the postwar reconstruction. Mr. Bush deserves credit for insisting since last summer that Iraq's intransigence was an issue that could no longer be ducked. In the intervening months, it has become clear that some countries, including France and Russia, would oppose meaningful action against Saddam Hussein no matter what. These countries have defended Iraq for years, and they see containment of U.S. power as more important than the disarmament of rogue states. Yet with more diplomatic suppleness, more flexibility on timing and less arrogant tactics and rhetoric, the administration might have won the backing of long-standing friends such as Turkey, Mexico and Chile. In effect, Mr. Bush and some of his top aides, most notably Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, have managed to convince much of the world that French President Jacques Chirac is right and that America's unrivaled power is a danger that somehow must be checked -- ideally by the votes of other nations on the Security Council. The United States has never accepted such a constraint, and it cannot do so now. On the contrary, the Iraq crisis should make clear to France and its sympathizers that after the catastrophe of Sept. 11, the United States is ready to use its strength to face threats to world peace that it tried to contain or ignore in the first decade after the Cold War. For all the bitterness and diplomatic turmoil, that is an important and necessary outcome -- which is one reason why, even without another Security Council vote, Iraq must be disarmed. Yet the quagmire at the United Nations, and the now-massive opposition in countries around the world to the removal of a murderous dictator, ought to offer some lessons to the Bush administration. If it is to succeed in its hugely ambitious agenda of combating terrorism and spreading democratic values, it must repair the rift among the Western democracies and build broad and effective coalitions. That, in turn, will require listening more to allies, showing flexibility in strategies and timetables, and speaking to the world in a voice that sounds more reasonable than arrogant. The right place to start is with the issues the White House raised Friday: the Arab-Israeli peace process and the postwar administration of Iraq. In both areas, the Bush administration could try to go its own way -- or it could pursue policies that would enlist the support of a broad front of allies. Given the very small circle of friends that will gather in the Azores today, recruiting allies will only become more important in the coming months. © 2003 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: Bilow who wrote (14634)	3/23/2003 7:26:11 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 89467

Pope Says War Threatens Fate of Humanity The Associated Press VATICAN CITY March 22, 2003 Pope John Paul II on Saturday denounced the war against Iraq as threatening the "fate of humanity" in his first public comments on the U.S-led attacks. "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society," John Paul said. "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men." The pontiff said that peace is "a gift of God and a humble and constant achievement by men." John Paul, with impassioned speeches and Vatican diplomacy, lobbied against war and in favor of a negotiated solution in the months before the conflict. more at: abcnews.go.com