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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (71914)	9/20/2004 7:10:33 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793908

Kofi's Law Why the U.N. has no moral standing. WSJ.com Monday, September 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. Last we checked, U.N. chief Kofi Annan was promising to help the U.S. rebuild Iraq. But pressed by a BBC interviewer last week, the Secretary-General stated flat out that the liberation of Iraq was "illegal" and a violation of the U.N. Charter. He had already opined that "there should have been a second resolution" authorizing the invasion, and that "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time." These thoughts could certainly stand a little parsing. Mr. Annan seems to be saying that the only way force can be used legitimately in the modern world is with the unanimous permission of the U.N. Security Council. So perhaps we should remind him of some recent history. For example, there was that splendidly legitimate U.N. operation in Bosnia, where its blue-helmeted peacekeepers watched with indifference as Serbian soldiers rounded up for slaughter thousands of Muslim men in the so-called U.N. "safe haven" of Srebrenica. Or Rwanda in 1994, where Mr. Annan--then head of the U.N. peacekeeping office--shrugged off panicked warning calls from the U.N. commander on the ground, thereby allowing the slaughter of 800,000. And if liberating Iraq was wrong, Mr. Annan must also believe it was wrong for NATO to have intervened in Kosovo, where Russia once again prevented Security Council unanimity. How about the recent French intervention in the Ivory Coast, which the Security Council got around to blessing only after it was a fait accompli? And notwithstanding the latest U.N. promises, what if Gallic and Chinese oil interests block international action in Sudan, allowing the continued attacks on Darfurians? It would appear, on this evidence, that Security Council unanimity isn't exactly the gold standard of legitimacy, much less of morality. And what's this business about a "second" Iraq resolution? U.N. Resolution 1441 was the 17th resolution demanding that Saddam verifiably disarm, behave with some modicum of respect for the rights of his own citizens, and otherwise comply with conditions of the ceasefire following the end of the 1991 Gulf War. From firing at American planes patrolling the no-fly zones, to widespread sanctions busting, to a banned long-range missile program, the Iraqi dictator was in undeniable breach in March 2003 of the terms under which his regime was spared back in 1991. In other words, there was never any legal need for even Resolution 1441. This is the same Kofi Annan, by the way, who said after saving Saddam from a U.S. armada in 1998 that "You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done." But in large part thanks to such diplomatic interventions by Mr. Annan on Saddam's behalf, by 2003 the dictator apparently believed that this "force" was always going to be an illusion. He thought he'd slip the noose one more time. The Secretary-General's latest posturing is far from harmless. The U.N. has been given the lead role in organizing the elections in Iraq scheduled for January. But Mr. Annan's "illegal" comments, which have been replayed across the Arab world, have given an added feeling of legitimacy to every jihadist hoping to disrupt the vote. His comments also suggest that Mr. Annan belongs in the same category as France and Russia in never intending the "serious consequences" threatened by Resolution 1441. We wonder: Could the corrupt Oil for Food program and all the revenues it generated for the U.N. have anything to do with it? Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To: LindyBill who wrote (71914)	9/20/2004 7:22:32 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793908

their election is in a few weeks. I thought polls had Latham ahead by a small margin... It is such a shame if these wonderful people lose their pride like Spain and turn inward to protect of their country. What amazes me is how long do these people thing Al Q. and terrorist can go unchecked. They will continue to grow until another major confrontation that may be world wide terror of sizes we couldn't imagine. These terrors lack fear as they believe in death as a reward. John Howard has been a great friend of America.

To: LindyBill who wrote (71914)	9/21/2004 5:00:27 AM
From: kumar	Respond to of 793908

Howard terror plan gets brush-off Malaysia has dismissed an Australian plan to create regional anti-terrorist police squads, saying it will not allow any violation of its sovereignty. Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said his country could deal with terrorist threats and would not allow "pre-emptive strikes" on its soil. Indonesia and the Philippines also rejected the plan, unveiled by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard faces a general election next month in which security is a key issue. Mr Howard proposed creating the special squads as a way of tackling terrorism at its source and preventing it from reaching Australia. He said the teams could be sent to neighbouring countries, such as Indonesia or the Philippines, with the approval of the governments concerned. But Mr Najib said Malaysia had not been consulted over the plan. "We think we have the capability to deal with any threat of terrorism," he was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency. 'Failed states' Indonesia's ambassador to Australia, Imron Cotan, reacted to the idea by saying he had been assured two years ago by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer that Australia would not send troops to intervene in other countries in the region. The Philippines responded that existing treaties would prevent Australia going beyond intelligence-gathering and technical expertise. Mr Downer later tried to reassure Australia's neighbours, saying the proposal was aimed at potential "failed states" which were unable to police themselves. "Of course we haven't any intention of sending troops into Indonesia without the approval of Indonesia," Mr Downer told national radio on Tuesday. "Now in the case of Indonesia, or Malaysia or Singapore or the Philippines, these are countries which are our partners in the war against terrorism." Flying squads In his original comments, Mr Howard said six teams of specialist investigators and experts in forensics and explosives would be set up at a cost of A$100m ($70m) if he won the election on 9 October. Two of the units would be located in south-east Asia, while the others would be based in Canberra and ready to fly out to other countries in the region at short notice. We will ensure that we take every measure possible to disrupt and destroy the terrorist networks at their source John Howard Mr Howard said the plan would build on his government's "excellent record of co-operation" with its neighbours, especially Indonesia, where Australian police officers have been based since the Bali night-club bombings in 2002, in which nearly 90 Australians were killed. The bombing of Australia's Jakarta embassy earlier this month has added to Canberra's concerns. Mr Howard also reiterated a pledge to launch pre-emptive strikes against foreign extremists as a last resort to protect Australia. "We will not wait for a terrorist threat to eventuate before we take action," he said in a statement. "In close co-operation with our regional neighbours, we will ensure that we take every measure possible to disrupt and destroy the terrorist networks at their source." The opposition Labour Party has also outlined a plan to boost maritime surveillance, which includes deploying new fleets of helicopters and boats crewed by armed marshals. The party's leader Mark Latham rejected the use of pre-emptive strikes, saying Australia needed to do "things in co-operation with our neighbours." Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk Published: 2004/09/21 03:49:54 GMT