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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (629262)	9/21/2004 1:05:02 AM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 769670

Maybe they are getting smarter, and realize it is the democrats who want to keep them in ghettos so they are beholding.

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (629262)	9/21/2004 8:35:54 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

EXCELLENT ARTICLE September 21, 2004 by Dinesh D'Souza The critics of the Bush administration, including many in his United Nations audience today, have tirelessly pointed out the perils of the U.S. going it virtually alone in Iraq. Just this week Kofi Annan said on the BBC World Service that he believes the war in Iraq is "illegal". To Annan, and many others, the moral authority of a world consensus is lacking, so the U.S. cannot claim to be acting “on behalf of the civilized world,” as it did in the first Gulf War. Second, having broken Iraq the U.S. now has the sole responsibility of fixing Iraq, whereas it would clearly be better for us to share the burden with the rest of the world. Finally despite America’s official transfer of power to the Allawi government in Baghdad, the Iraqis know that the U.S. is still calling the shots in Iraq and therefore they are in the humiliating position of having another country tell them what to do. This provokes ingratitude and resistance, even when the Iraqis are being asked to do the right thing. But if unilateral action has its dangers and limits, so does collective action. Once again, it’s instructive to start with the first Gulf War. Today’s pundits are fond of saying, “It’s a pity that we didn’t get rid of Saddam Hussein the first time. It’s a pity that our troops didn’t go all the way to Baghdad.” But the reason that American troops couldn’t go all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was that we had a coalition. President George H.W. Bush had assiduously assembled an international alliance that included all the Western countries and even several Muslim countries. But this alliance decided in advance that its mission would be restricted to pushing the invader Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Once this was accomplished, the alliance breathed a sigh of relief and declared, “Mission accomplished.” At this point President Bush could not risk sending the troops on to Baghdad. To do so would risk the condemnation of America’s own Western allies, not to mention our Muslim allies. And so Hussein survived in 1991 and over the next decade he consolidated his power and rebuilt his forces. Presidential candidate John Kerry, up until yesterday, seemed to agree with President George W. Bush that the Iraq invasion was both necessary and justified. Kerry’s criticism was, “But there was a better way to go about it.” For Kerry, this better way meant bringing in that great instrument of collective action, the United Nations. Now it must be conceded that the United Nations has a role to play in Iraq, a role that President Bush himself has belatedly discovered. That role is to lessen the humiliation of the Iraqis by giving them the illusion that it is not the U.S. but the “international community” that is guiding the country’s future. It is less embarrassing for Iraqis to tell themselves, “The international community is helping us out,” than to tell themselves, “The U.S. is telling us what to do.” So a rainbow alliance of Asian and African and Latin American faces in Iraq can help to serve this symbolic purpose. But it is a foolish leap from this modest role for the United Nations to conclude, as Kerry seems to do, that the United Nations can do a better job than the United States in determining the future of Iraq. How is this possible? What America is attempting to do in Iraq is to impose (there is no reason to shrink from the harsh word) democracy. This is not easy, given that there is no history of democracy in the Middle East. But even Kerry and the cynical Europeans cannot deny that the experiment in sowing the seed of democracy in the Middle East is a worthwhile one. Even if it fails, it is worth attempting. This is a task, however, that cannot be turned over to the United Nations. Of the nearly 200 nations that make up the U.N., less than 50 are democracies. How can the United Nations effectively impose democracy in Iraq when it cannot effectively impose democracy on the nations that make up the U.N.? It is a simple matter of credibility. Moreover, there is another problem. The governing principle that determines legitimacy according to the U.N. is “sovereignty.” This is the core principle of “international law.” But sovereignty simply means that it is illegitimate to trespass across a nation’s borders. What is the moral basis of “sovereignty”? Consider Saddam Hussein. He came to power by force. He maintained himself in power by force. So what moral right did this man have to rule? None. What moral objection could be raised to another party pushing him out by force? None. The concepts of “sovereignty” and “international law” both act to protect Hussein’s position in power, just as they protect other despots and tyrants who sit comfortably in the halls of the United Nations. Perhaps this is why the United Nations has been so slow to act in the Sudan where even ethnic cleansing has drawn little response from this ineffectual organization. Or consider Iran’s snubbing of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This past Saturday the IAEA commanded Tehran to suspend their enrichment of uranium, a process required for the production of nuclear bombs. The Iranians have recently tested missiles capable of carrying such a warhead as far as Israel. This week's New York Times reported that the former Iranian president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, declared that Iran would lodge a complaint against the IAEA if the IAEA demanded that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Perhaps such a development will give the United Nations the moral clarity and courage needed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions. None of this is to say that collective action is a bad thing. As I have tried to argue here, there are times when it is a good thing. But we should remember the severe limits to its utility and never consider it our only course of action. tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358 Phone: (805) 241-3138 \| Fax: (805) 241-3158 \| info@tothesource.org