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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (364901)	2/28/2003 6:06:49 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Winning a war and losing the world By William Pfaff IHT Thursday, February 27, 2003 Washington's folly PARIS - The Bush government's Phony War against Iraq now has lasted longer than the Phony War of 1939-1940. With each month of delay, opposition to the American plan to invade Iraq has intensified. The administration's manners in campaigning for war have provoked a real anti-Americanism in West European opinion, going much beyond mere dissent on this one issue. . During the 11 months since the administration made public its intention to cause "regime change" in Iraq, international markets and the international economy have foundered in uncertainty about the war. . This uncertainty, which businessmen and investors hate, has smothered the international recovery previously expected to follow the bust of the high-tech bubble. The Bush people seem not to have noticed. . The American Phony War is damaging the international economy, the principal international security and political institutions, and what is left of the American reputation for seriousness. Yet until the U.S. military buildup started this winter, Washington's policy toward Iraq was little more than bullying bluster, which Saddam Hussein was able to turn to his own advantage. . Despite having declared a policy of preemptive war, and saying that he was free to strike Iraq as he wished, ignoring international legality, President George W. Bush seems to have been convinced by Secretary of State Colin Powell that he would do better to have allies and a veneer of international approval. The administration seems not to have understood, however, that there was no point in going to the UN Security Council if the United States intended to ignore other opinions and only wanted endorsement for what it had already said it intended to do. . The trip to the United Nations thus simply provided time for mobilization of diplomatic and popular opposition to U.S. plans. The result has weakened the administration's domestic as well as international positions. . Washington lost the first round in the Security Council, where it thought it could easily prevail. The new U.S. (or Anglo-American-Spanish) resolution, circulated on Monday, also seems unlikely to pass, even without a veto. . Washington also unwisely tried to "bounce" NATO into deploying a defense of Turkey against Iraq, a threat Turkey would only face if the United States invaded Iraq. This backfired, blocked by Belgium, France and Germany, eventually finding an obscure compromise at the military level. . Washington's one success has been to split the European Union. . The incompetence of all this is what surprises. Never before has the Iraqi despot had so many governments trying to prevent an attack on him. Never before has opinion in the liberal democracies been so alienated from the United States. . The president and his men have put their own team in a hole so deep that when Washington does go to war against Iraq, as it soon will, it is unlikely to have any major allies left other than the governments of Britain, Spain and Poland. . Washington says that what thus far has happened in the Security Council threatens to demonstrate the UN's "irrelevance," since the UN is relevant only when it endorses U.S. decisions. NATO found a compromise on Turkey, but after the Belgian-Franco-German revolt, Washington will never again go to NATO on any serious matter. . Washington is delighted to have split "new Europe" from "old Europe," but may actually have done old Europe a favor. Old Europe is very close to a European Union membership expansion motivated not by interest but by a sense of obligation toward the former Warsaw Pact states. This expansion would end any possibility for a federal Europe, or even for a "Europe of nations" capable of an independent global role. . The old Europeans now are inclined to question, rethink or postpone expansion, or even to reformulate it so that the EU has first- and second-class members. Thus Washington has quite possibly made an activist, rival Europe more, rather than less, likely. . Tribune Media Services International iht.com CC

To: TigerPaw who wrote (364901)	2/28/2003 7:02:53 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The Nasdaq, truly, fell some 40% prior to the end of Clinton's time, and the Economy was NOT remaining strong as you suggest. You are inventing realities, do you really not know it? We KNOW that the unfortunate change of direction that was taking place in the market AND the Economy during Clintons last year, merely continued as it had begun, after he left. As I was saying, economists well recognize delayed effects, which tells all reasonable people that at minimum, both Clinton's final year and Bush's first year, are economically on Clinton, if on any President. Yet in your bias you are oblivious to the practical unbelievability of your position. Democrats towing your line will be stomped, IMO. Americans lived it, and the great undecided middle of the road "Democrats for Reagan" and the like, will see right through such phony arguments, IMO. Dan B

To: TigerPaw who wrote (364901)	2/28/2003 9:25:51 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Before you get too deep into hero worship for Slick Willie, maybe there's one thing you ought to consider: He, more than anyone else, elected George Bush. By the time Slick was done, 50% of the people despised him so much that they would have voted for Jacques Chirac rather than accept Slick 2.0. And there was definitely a lot to despise about that man.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (364901)	2/28/2003 9:43:31 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

That was a BUBBLE, stupid. If you can't recognize one when you're in it (or even after,apparently), you had best stay totally clear of the market or those of us who can are going to own you, your dog, and your wife and kids. When bubbles finally break, stupid, BAD THINGS HAPPEN. All the debts and spurious enterprises built up during the bubble when money was free and easy and everyone was going to become rich come crashing down. The outgoing tide is so strong that it not only takes the excess with it, it takes much else that actually did serve a purpose. Including, I'm sure, much of what you had. Assuming you had anything. Unfortunately, these days public libraries have connections to the net, so you can still get on.