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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55748)	11/4/2002 6:02:48 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

The Chirac Doctrine : what is it worth being being elected by 80% of the nation (including all my friends) if Chirac isn't ever invited to his Crawford week end ? It used to be grandeur, now it's just begging...

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55748)	11/4/2002 8:45:07 PM
From: BigBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yup, Krauthammer, Kagan, and Sullivan. Can Safire and Kristol be far behind? :o}

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55748)	11/6/2002 5:12:18 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The French terrorist state is in favour of Saddam's murderous ways. There is no reason that one little hillbilly nonentity representing a country which had some significance three centuries ago, should hold the world hostage by a veto granted half a century ago for some weird reason. It's time to reconstitute the United Nations, including ditching Chirac and France as vetoists. I'd rather give the veto to me old mate Kumara and India. At least some serious numbers of people would be represented. A billion in India, 1/20th that in France. Or Japan. Or Germany. But no, there shouldn't be vetoists in the new UN. <France's President Jacques Chirac is "determined" to prevent the United States from removing the Iraqi regime of President Saddam Hussein by force. Sources in Paris insist that Chirac has decided to use the French veto in the United Nations Security Council, if necessary, to derail American plans for an attack on Iraq. "If you ask me what will happen next I can tell you there will be no war," a senior French official told me on condition of anonymity. "President Chirac has taken personal charge of the Iraq dossier with the clear aim of preventing an unnecessary war that could destabilize the whole of the Middle East." > Chuck out Saddam. Put in Bill Clinton. Redo the UN. Set up the new UN HQ in some of Saddam's palaces. Use Iraqi oil to fund the UN and Iraq's development. It's all about oil. Chirac isn't getting a piece of the pie and lower oil prices will make his nuclear reactors less profitable. John Browne [BP] and Tony Blair want a bigger piece of Iraq's oil. The UN should own it. In a dog eat dog world, the biggest dog gets the bone. The USA should lead the reconstitution of the UN into something sensible. That would be the best way to reduce terrorism if they want that and don't want to create an American Empire of the old style where there are two divisions of human - Yanks and Aliens. The British didn't have two divisions - everyone was a British Subject. Easy. Mqurice