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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (4354)	2/19/2003 7:20:29 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

If I do business with someone I know is a genocidal despot, then I support that despot. Same as France is doing NOW with its oil business in Iraq.

To: zonder who wrote (4354)	2/19/2003 7:37:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The French are not "supporting Saddam". Hey, zonder, Chirac looks like Saddam's "Best Bud" to us. He sold him the Atomic Power plant back in '81 that the Israeli's blew up. France does an enormous business with Iraq, on a very favorable basis. Who else does Saddam have on his side? The other ME states don't like him, they know he is at the bottom of the ME cesspool. That is getting to be a major opinion over here. We think he is "Pimping" for Saddam.

To: zonder who wrote (4354)	2/19/2003 11:38:55 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The situation is dripping with irony. After months of rhetoric where Chirac accused the US of "unilateralism", Chirac now appears to be the one who is unilateral. With 19 members of the NATO council, 16 voted in favor of sending defensive units to Turkey and only three voted against, vetoing the initiative. And when the issue was moved to a different venue, where the other 18 also participate but where France is not a member, more or less the same initiative passed (because Germany and Belgium did not resist it). Equally, it now seems as if a large number of current members of the EU, and an overwhelming percentage of candidates, don't see the US as the Great Satan and do seem to think that inspections lasting essentially forever are not acceptable. Which makes France's threatened veto of any upcoming UNSC resolution authorizing war look increasingly like unilateral French action which will not be taken after consultation with its neighbors. Chirac has become what he accused Bush of being. denbeste.nu

To: zonder who wrote (4354)	2/20/2003 7:34:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The French are not "supporting Saddam". Just like demanding that a rapist be put through trial rather than lynched by an angry mob along with his family is not "supporting a rapist". As I get a chance to review the posts from the past week a little closer, I realize that I should have corrected you on this errant perspective. Because your analogy fails to reflect the situation. Were this rape, then Saddam HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED by the ORIGINAL UNSC BINDING resolution authorizing his ouster from Kuwait and demanding the disarming of all of Saddam's WMDs and long-range delivery systems. We stopped his raping, placing him under "house arrest" instead of incarcerating/executing him... And this was done at the urging of the neighbors who feared creating a precedent for the global police to clean up their neighborhood, despite the global police having a desire to either incarcerate or execute Saddam.. So here's where it stands now Zonder.. Saddam has broken the terms of his parole and holed himself up in his house and has beaten his kids to the point that the Global Police have placed them under their protection. He has threatened to beat up on his neighbors and the Global Police have prevented this through threatening use of brute force. The Global Police havereluctantly initiated surveillance and token punitive actions in order to keep Saddam in line, but they have STILL not been able to make him disarm.. Because he keeps hiding his weapons.. So it's HARDLY a case of Saddam being "lynched" by an angry mob. It's more a case of 17 binding court injunctions having been ignored by the defendent and the police demanding that the court enforce their rulings so the neighborhood can be made safer and so the police can reduce their presence there.. This has been going on for 13 years Zonder!!!.. For 13 years France, Germany, Russia, and a whole host of other states have been trying to ingratiate themselves to Saddam Hussein because Iraq represents a huge marketing opportunity... And they have done this at the cost of the UN's credibility to be able to enforce its own binding resolutions. And they have done this while the US forks out billions to contain and constrain Saddam, never once receiving any offer from the UN to pay the costs of these operations.. And they know that should Saddam get out of hand, the US would be there to set things straight at the cost of even MORE American blood.. They can play all they want and if something goes amiss, those "stupeed and guullible Americaines will feex zee problem"... As for "taking oil", I would submit that it's ALREADY being taken.. by Saddam and those nations who are propering from that relationship with his despotic government. Saddam has "taken oil" and used the proceeds to buil a dozen fabulous palaces and maintain his life of priviledge... He has taken that money from the mouths of Iraqi children, the Iraqi economy, and squashed Iraqi hopes of a better life.. So it is the French, and TotalFina, and the Russians, who are "taking oil" RIGHT NOW... Taking it from the Iraqi people and threatening to take even more in the future... What the US proposes to do is to RETURN that oil to the people it actually belongs to.. The Iraqi people... And as a result of course, American oil companies will rightfully prosper as a result. And you can D@MN well bet that were the US to attempt to keep those oil fields to itself, the world would rise up in an uproar that would easily overshadow the current turmoil.. This is NOT about maintaining a "world order" aimed at defendng weak governments Zonder.. The past 13 years have seen the UN pay lip service to stopping Saddam from tramping the weak Shia Marsh Arabs, or the Kurds.. It was the US which unilaterally initiated Deny Flight operations to provide air cover for the these people... And it has been the UN which has REFUSED to acknowledge these operations as sanctionable under the UNSC resolutions against Saddam.. So they leave the US to do the dirty work while they cozy up with Saddam.. And they would prefer to leave the current UN sanctions in place indefinitely, despite previously urging them to be removed, and further commit the US to maintain 200,000 troops in place until they can manage to accomplish their phony inspection process... But do they offer to reimburse the US for maintaining those troops in place? No... Do they offer to commit their own troops?? No.... That, my dear Zonder is the "world order" you wish to maintain... And that is exactly what has continued to repress the economic hopes of the entire region and fed a fountain of despair which, in turn, feeds increasing militancy in the region.. Hawk