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: Hawkmoon who wrote (124076)	1/31/2004 8:33:39 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<And Bush only pursued that second resolution because he was pressured by Blair> Public opinion polls at the time showed that Americans would be supportive of US action but only in the context of the UN -- Bush had his own political hide to protect. As for Russia, they did not have to veto anything because there was no vote. Putin said he would support an invasion if there was any proof from inspectors of WMD -- and there was no proof so he did not support the invasion. Turned out he was wiser than Bush.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (124076)	1/31/2004 10:20:32 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I thought we're discussing formalism of international law, not motivations behind the scene. My opinion regarding Chirac: I liked very much the slogan of the French liberals during the decisive election versus LePen: "Vote for the crook, not for the Nazi" As for the real motivation to invade and occupy Iraq, I still prefer the version of the military-oil-industrial complex around Cheney (secret boss of the administration according to O'Neil). After Enron and Worldcom liberalisation scam, the next stop to upload easy taxpayer's money is the privatisation of the military (Prechtel, Halliburton, Kellogg and and endless list here). Those Cheney buddies make a fortune now out of this war game (and you need a war to create real big $ numbers in this industry). With tax free dividends! And paid out of a deluge of growing public debts! There's no real competition in this secretive business, so you can collect huge adminstrated profits. The GIs paying with their lives and their limbs are the icing on the cake of this huge scam. And I don't like to talk here about the killing of thousands and thousands Iraqis, needed to achieve the goals of riskless self-enrichment. So if you ask me whether Chirac or Cheney being the bigger crook, frankly I don't know. But I can say this: I'm looking forward to a honest American administration. The world does need it. Badly. "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Reichs-Marschall Hermann Goering, an expert in self-enrichment by war, invasion and occupation.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (124076)	1/31/2004 12:04:44 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

That means that Russia and China saw the legitimacy of the action, as well as noting their relationship with the US was more important than Saddam Hussein's hide. The second clause of your sentence should be afforded more emphasis than the first, as explaining it. And later when you say, "the country that represents 33% of the global GDP"--I don't really know if the number is exact, but it doesn't really matter in this context. It provides sufficient motivation for them seeing the "legitimacy of the action." And Bush only pursued that second resolution because he was pressured by Blair in the face of the tremendous propaganda being put out by Chirac and Schroeder, in their bid to become the voice of the EU. Someone else already said that there were domestic pressures as well. Besides, the fact is they weren't ready militarily to actually invade. Delaying while going through the charade of going to the UN served both purposes. The invasion was going to happen whatever the UN said. As Machiavelli said long ago, if a leader wants to go to war, inventing a "reason" for it is the least of his problems.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (124076)	1/31/2004 9:11:41 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Boris, even Putin and China had decided to abstain from that second UNSC vote, giving Bush the votes he needed to carry it. At least until Chirac decided to openly oppose and threaten a veto of it, rendering pursuing the vote to be useless." This is a rewrite of history in several ways. Russia openly said that they would veto any resolution authorizing force. And even ignoring the veto power, Bush never had the votes necessary to carry the resolution. For example: Russia has reiterated its opposition to intervention in Iraq. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said in Dushanbe today that any resolution which 'paves the path, either directly or indirectly, to a military action against Iraq' would be vetoed. rte.ie It is understood the US and Britain have so far failed to muster the nine votes needed for the UNSC to adopt a draft resolution opening the way for war with Iraq. ... The vote on the resolution has been delayed as intense diplomatic manoeuvring continues, but both France and Russia - which are permanent members - have signalled they are prepared to use their vetoes. rte.ie It's like you're blaming France for all of Bush's diplomatic problems. The simple truth is that the US couldn't even convince Canada or Mexico to side with it against Iraq. -- Carl