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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5592)	9/1/2002 10:20:58 AM
From: t2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Jim, Gore has realized how serious the environmental issues are. Most other US politicians want to turn a blind eye to this issue. I think the environment is going to become a serious problem between the US and the rest of the world. We are still in the early stages of this rift. Would not surprise me if somehow the Europeans threaten to levy some sort of clean air tax against US corporations down the road. That has an effect on US business and that seems to be the only way to get US politicians' attention...to push the US to signing some sort of international environmental treaties. We can see how the EU is developing the idea of targeted tariffs for products of key US election states. They are figuring it out now. They are learning the way the game is played in the US...it is all about Big Business and Lobby groups.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5592)	9/3/2002 10:53:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush against the world Europe should speak its mind Leader Monday September 2, 2002 The Guardian From Turkey to Egypt and Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, no countries in the Islamic world are paragons of internal democracy. They limit debate and punish dissent. Yet George Bush's crusade against Iraq has produced a disturbing paradox. The Islamic world understands that, at least in foreign affairs, politics is about speaking your mind in public. Words uttered in the open can be a powerful ingredient in the mix of pressures that decision-makers have to weigh. By contrast, it is in Europe, with its democratic traditions, that this truism is being discarded. Gerhard Schröder is the only leader who has publicly denounced US plans for an attack on Iraq. Others hide their doubts and speak opaquely. The Islamic world's near-unanimity in warning against such an attack is the more remarkable in that many of the loudest opponents are major recipients of American aid or loans from the International Monetary Fund (which often amount to the same thing). When allies defy Washington, regardless of indebtedness, their boldness is impressive. The presidents of Pakistan and Egypt made their opposition clear last week. Turkey has also told the United States it is unhappy about Mr Bush's war plans. Rich Gulf states, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have said the same. Kuwait and Iran, the two countries with most reason to fear Saddam Hussein since they have been invaded by him in the past, are also opposed. The contrast with 1991, when George Bush senior put together a military coalition against Iraq, is striking. At that time, the US war aim of reversing Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was clear. It was aimed at defending a state's national sovereignty. Arab states were not enthusiastic about an outside non-Arab power using force in their region and there were doubts as to how far the US had gone in trying to find a negotiated solution before embarking on the path of war. But there was a firm Arab consensus on the need to reverse the Iraqi invasion. This time Mr Bush junior's aim of "regime change" in Iraq stands the national sovereignty issue on its head, and creates a precedent for further interventions by the United States against other governments around the world. Mr Bush junior also differs from his father on his approach to Israel. While George Bush senior took a firm line with Israel, pressing it to join the Madrid conference for regional peace in the Middle East, the current president is limp. Lampooned in cartoons in which he warns the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, "Withdraw, or I will do nothing", Mr Bush has adopted a more one-sided position on Israel and the Palestinians than any US president before him. Why should Islamic leaders help a man whose priorities in the Middle East are so far from their concerns? Colin Powell said yesterday that US policy was that weapons inspectors should return and that the world has to be presented with the information necessary for a serious debate. Donald Rumsfeld, by contrast, says that the United States will go to war against Iraq alone, if necessary. Other countries, he adds, will see sense after the event. This is as arrogant as it is misguided. Few leaders, Arabs included, have any liking for Saddam Hussein. If he died tomorrow, the region would not mourn. That does not mean they welcome foreign military intervention to remove him. Ignoring their objections risks turning George Bush's war into a dangerous "clash of civilisations". Which is yet another reason why European governments that have doubts about Mr Bush's policy should join their Islamic colleagues in unfettered public dissent. guardian.co.uk