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: paul_philp who wrote (81378)	3/11/2003 10:32:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes. The French betrayal is as total as it was surprising, after earnest promises from President Chirac to support the U.S. in return for elaborate concessions on U.N. Resolution 1441. They think they now have President Bush in a fox-trap: from which he cannot escape without chewing off a leg. They may be right: he may now have no choice but to chew off the British leg. But whether they are right or not, they will now reap the whirlwind. I would lay down large money that this summary is not far from President Bush's view of the affair.

To: paul_philp who wrote (81378)	3/12/2003 10:47:05 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The perception in this article is very selective. Yeah, selective perception. Since I know so much from following this board I had to laugh at some of the sensationalized and dramatic description of the facts. I could do a rewrite and spin it all the other way but we have been doing that for 80000 posts. In the article, theyy fail to mention that the drone was not assembled and when put together (at request of inspectors) duct tape was used to hold it together. The drone was mentined in the written report but not the oral report because it needed more investigation. On the other hand, the fabrications presented by President Bush and Secretary Powell never make it to CNN, Faux, etc. THe only mention I heard of the falsified NUKe report that Powell quoted at the UN was someone saying "It didn't matter." And here we are. Who has the best grasp on reality? Apparently the "Uncurious, not-well-traveled George view" is the only one we are meant to have. One side says horrible things will happen if we invade Iraq. The other says horrible things will happen if we do not invade and regime-change Iraq. Both sides have earnest arguments to support their view. It's like one side starts on the right foot with everything nice and then it blows up because of invasion. THe other side starts with the left foot and says everything is going to blow up if we don't invade and do regime change. Both are fear based and both sides fear the blow-up. We are angry with each other because we think the other side doesn't get it. Everybody thinks their view of reality is the right one and if we just see the world and do things their way all will be well. Each side sees the other side as an impediment to peace. "Since 9/11, everything has changed." That's what President Bush says. And things have sure been different since 9/11. But I think "Everything has changed." since the selection of President Bush in the sad, embarassing election of 2000. My new reality about the Supreme Court is not pretty. I see massive political lies and strong arming by organized groups that are now on my radar screen. The reality of the destruction of the mass media is the scariest. THe Political incompetance is by now almost funny. It all comes down to whose version of reality we accept. THe underlying question is: "WHen it comes to this "new-WORLD-WIDE-reality", who elected George Bush to define our version. (Interestingly, the democratically run countries are our biggest opponent. THe recently freed 3rd Worlders recognize a familiarity and run to President Bush's side.) It comes down to one thing. WHo do you trust with your future reality? And does President Bush hold that vision? What's the gap between his version and yours? Who has done most of the obfuscation, changing goals, back-pedaling and wordsmithing? If this subjective thinking is unrewarding then lets be specific. Based in the reality since Jan 20,2000, wHo do you trust with: THe budget? Tax policy? War strategy? Diplomacy? Job creation? Correcting COrporate fraud? Funding educational priorities? Funding Homeland Security? Supporting first responders? Help for States and Cities and unfunded mandates? Finding the Anthrax terrorist? Investigating 9/11? Protection of social Security? Perscription Drug Plan? The stock market? Deficits? Family planning? Separation of CHurch and state? Veterans Affairs? The environment? Civil Rights? THe Constitution? In all honesty President BUsh is my second choice. Everybody else is my first. Rascal@ whereisMortSahl?.com