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: zonder who wrote (54097)	10/23/2002 5:36:56 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

to protect Saddam by strangling any weapons inspections in delay and diplomatic excuses. I think it is more "Protect" than "on the side of." France would love it if Saddam went peacefully. (A stroke while asleep would fit). They just have too much tied up in the ME to want us to be a major player there. If we conquer Iraq we will occupy and direct things in the area from then on. Europe certainly does not want this. It has been their "Stomping Grounds" since WWI. You may see it as the French "hating war", I see it as Power Politics.

To: zonder who wrote (54097)	10/23/2002 10:40:15 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

This is hardly the intellectual depth I would expect from WSJ. Um. Do you read the WSJ editorial page regularly? There may be a more kneejerk conservative organ somewhere in the alleged mainstream; if so, I'd prefer not to have it inflicted on me though. URL for that particular diplomatic screed: opinionjournal.com

To: zonder who wrote (54097)	10/23/2002 12:06:13 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

This is hardly the intellectual depth I would expect from WSJ. Zonder, it's from the editorial section of the WSJ. So can be excused. The paper itself, at least it's investigative journalism staff is quite good. It's editorial section redefines the word "ideological," into its strictest possible construction.

To: zonder who wrote (54097)	10/23/2002 1:28:39 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The US is not always right. We are for disarmement of Iraq but war is going to be the absolute last resort." Ok, we tried sanctions. We tried limited war. We tried armistice agreements, containment and arms inspections and sanctions all together. Now France's official position is, try inspections one more time, and if Saddam plays games again, return to the UN to talk about it some more -- it would be too hasty to actually put an "or else" in the resolution. So tell me, how many next-to-last-resorts does France favor? A large number, I should think; enough to win a year's delay and derail the US efforts to oust Saddam. and are not eager to jump in line behind the trigger-happy US administration, they can hardly be called "on the side of Saddam". No, I don't think they are on the side of Saddam. It's just business -- they are on the side of their own oil contracts.