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: D. Long who wrote (73264)	2/12/2003 11:29:46 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

agreed, thanks for the correction. My point was that the US went in and dragged Europe with it(kicking and screaming). The EU's fledgling foreign policy wasn't working then and is working poorly now. My take is that the EU should be taking a much more unified stance on the Iraqi problem in order to support the UN, something in which the US has not been very interested. The US has managed to drive a wedge between groups in the EU. Witness the present difference between Denmark and Norway Sweden and Finland. That there is a lot of resentment in the Danish parliament because of the unilateral way the ruling Left party acted on the Iraqi question is not doubted. More serious is the fact that the Radical Left party has not spoken up. For those of you who wonder about the parties in power in Denmark here is a partial dictionary of Danish political parties. Danish Peoples party= rabid right wing party Left party= right wing party Conservative Peoples Party=right wing party These 3 make up the government Radical Left party= right, left, and centrist party depending on the issue Christian Democrats=christian right, left, and centrist party depending on the issue. Social Democrats=social democrats, right, left, and centrist party depending on the issue. Socialist Peoples party=left wing party