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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (2157)	3/24/2003 2:26:26 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37188

He makes some points here ... one was timing - there was no reason to announce a policy of going in only with a UNSC vote of war, after the french had said they would veto such a vote no matter what ... this did subordinate us to the french, quite wrongly .... to put the question to an honest vote is one thing, and highly desirable, but the action of veto is not, it is the opposite of a democratic discovery of will .... the bushistas were running around coercing/bribing several members of the council in the time just before this, but the french were being dickheads as well .... a pox on both their houses, would be our wisest course Mexicanos played it cool, they refused to indicate their decision until the actual vote ... there was no vote, so we'll never know, nobody got pissed off, los hijos live to fight another day Here is a piece on Cook, of whom MacKenzie speaks - observer.co.uk I'm not sure the parallel between Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq is a useful one .... these are orders of magnitude apart in terms of consequences, and in the case of the former there was broad consensus among what i would consider a quorum of democracies ..... should the serbs have been left to wipe out the kosavars? - i don't know, but a large number of reasonably democratic nations thought otherwise ........ this is not the case with invasion of Iraq in this manner - leaving aside inherent defects in the UNSC, almost no one supports war-first there, outside a high percentage in the US and Israel Anyway, Lew is missing the main point - the absolutely unlimited agenda of the Bush II doctrine ... it is a programme of carte blanche, they are stating that there is to be no input whatsoever from the rest of us on the uses of US military power .... 'yer with us or yer agin us' - from the moment that choice is forced unnecessarily, we cannot in good conscience be with them .... we're not against them either, but that doesn't matter, current admin down there will hear what it wants to hear