Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)	2/16/2003 12:18:14 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Agree, I think. The SC resolved in 1441 to put the burden on Saddam to do the necessary to avoid "serious consequences." Can it really be said that French perfidy--and I'm using the word exactly as intended by the dictionary--with respect to the Resolution was caused by Bush's rudeness? I rather doubt it. Having Ms. Manners at Bush's or Rumsefeld's elbows would not have changed things one bit. Powell's impassioned speech got to the nub of things. The French are making a mockery of a Resolution which was painstakingly negotiated in good faith by the US. They deserve to be well and properly castigated for this perfidy. The justification tht the inspections are working is, to put things undiplomatically, unadulterated horseshit. I think perhaps tb is referring to the general style of the Bush Administration in foreign policy, which has admittedly been abrasive, particularly as regards formerly great powers who hold no-longer-justified veto power at the SC. If that is the gist, I agree.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next