SI
SI
discoversearch

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: chomolungma who wrote (68271)3/5/2003 12:39:52 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
I read a different analysis. It said the long term costs of disagreeing with US are even higher. So it is not strictly dollars and cents. Rather the author believed it is the perception of US as the bully which makes Europe not want to let Bush get away with it. They fear that as the only superpower standing, US is prone to abuse its position, especially under Bush. So they'd rather stand firm before it becomes a big trend. Unilateral discard of international treaties went a long way towards setting this view, as did the "if you are not with us you are against us" policy.



To: chomolungma who wrote (68271)3/5/2003 12:47:50 PM
From: runes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
<<France, Russia and China object to the war is that it breaks the oil deals they made with Saddam>>

And here you have an interesting dilemma. If this plan were backed as a UN solution with a UN backed provisional government then they would have a fair chance at either maintaining the existing contracts and/or be giving a fair opportunity to engage in new contracts.
...But, if they oppose and the US goes it alone, then their positins would be much weaker.
...It would still take a fair amount of diplomacy to get them out of their entrenched position as it would to get GWB out of his. But, I believe, this approach would provide major benefits to all parties to ease the policy shifts.