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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (67266)	1/6/2003 6:19:06 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

<Who could the US back in Palestine? You do not mention the repeated statements of our illustrious president <g> that he welcomes a Palestinian state.> It is not a question of picking one out two to "back", on the contrary! GWB is, to my knowledge , the first to welcome a palestine state, skipping first ladies. However, claiming that he would "get out of it all" (the isolationist variation, but not getting into details) and then turning around the sledge, as well as not really adressing the real problems is but a minor incremental step, especially considering his "actual acts" Worst, probabl, the way the USA is spinning the stuff, which obviously is nothing wrong in itself, as long as some top leaders or "THE leader" puts a break on the spin every now and then by some clear speaches, press releases or debates. If not directly, at least to result in less spin and more factually based public debate. Ilmarinen That is, I;m including the, what was it, 18 statements Bush did as a just weakly elected president, pissing off most of the world, and then having to turn around the sledge on almost all of them. Including the "wag the dog" thing, and especially the specific USA peculiarity, a two-party system and no (transparent,open) continuity in either foreign nor domestic politics. Plus the fact that US is hampered by too long campaign between too often reoccuring elections, leaving very little time for constructive politics. (goes with the adversarial 2-party system, "winner-takes-all" and that even the balance president-house-senate can go wrong in times of domestic crises. Bottom line, due to this system of "wild rethorics and spins", internal adversarial dog fights, resulting in sometimes instant on-off switching of politics, one could say it as "US cannot be trusted" (but for some months, when outside campaigns and elections, pre and post them) Btw, not "my ideas", EU has already formally complained on these matters in terms of cooperation on international politics. (EU has kind of similar problems in terms of un-synchronized elections of (major) member state, which to some degree "halts" everyting) Btw,btw, one perfect example was obviously (Whitewater + Lewinsky) when finally the economy was going along fairly well. (bottom-bottom-line, personally my interest is kind of how well people understand both their own political system, elections,etc as well as that of others)