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 (81655)	3/13/2003 12:22:57 AM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Great read, thx Paul. However, if France believes they have become a new pole after this, they are sadly mistaken.

To: paul_philp who wrote (81655)	3/13/2003 10:20:51 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

After the Bush speech, France knew two things. First, Bush was going to take care of the problem of Iraq. France didn't have to worry that it's UNSC vote would have a material impact on that situation. Second, in the emerging world order, France was not a tier-1 player in the American orbit but Britain is tier-1. Yes, I think so too, Paul. Chirac is pursuing short-term political popularity and la gloire, i.e. preferring to be a big fish in the anti-American pond rather than a little fish in the Atlantic alliance. I just heard a BBC announcer say that Chirac actually blushed when an interviewer compared him to de Gaulle. Personally, I think he's footing a bill too long for his purse with the US and most of Europe. The UN is dead, kaput, finito. It was one of the most important things I thought needed to happen post 9-11 and I didn't even recognize it when it happened. I really don't know about that. So many people believe in the UN that they contrive to keep it alive, even as a fiction. Sort of like the Holy Roman Empire.