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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69255)	4/4/2003 2:22:23 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

I picked this up on a Russian thread. US Congress: Russia will be barred from Iraq restoration The US House of Representatives passed an amendment to the law on financing the war in Iraq, which bars France, Germany, Russia and Syria from participating in contracts on Iraq’s postwar restoration, financed by Washington. Under the amendment, French, German, Russian and Syrian companies will be barred from taking part in such contracts, as well as from getting access to information about them. According to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, the passage of this amendment is a retaliation against the opposition of these countries to the US-led military campaign in Iraq. The US Congress also approved the allocation of $80bn to finance the war in Iraq, reward key allies, bolster anti-terrorism efforts and help struggling airlines. The bulk of these funds - $60bn – will go to the Pentagon. Earlier, some analysts predicted that Russia would be refused participation in oil contracts in the post-war Iraq because of its tough position on the Iraqi crisis. Only if the distribution of oil contracts is controlled by the United Nations will Russia have a slim chance to participate. On Thursday, UN and NATO countries demanded that the United States give the UN a key role in the post-war Iraq. However, Washington does not agree. US Secretary of State Colin Powell did not give a clear opinion on the role of the UN in the post-war settlement in Iraq. source:rbc fred

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69255)	4/4/2003 2:33:48 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Then I think what you should be doing is to write to your congressman to support the creation of World Court and to revive the Prevention of Genocide Act that was defeated by Reagan administration.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69255)	4/5/2003 9:48:11 PM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Re: The UN could have enforced 1441. It is an UN resolution, not a US resolution. The analogy(in your local community) would be your court sentence someone to death but the local authority doesn't carry out that yet. Your Fred, the richest man in your area just hire some hit man and help the authority to do the job. Are you telling me you think that is ok ?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69255)	4/7/2003 5:36:49 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

You ask why I don't answer you. The answer is that is that I do, and it gets repetitive. This time I'll answer in capitals! I BLAME THE US, AND THE WORLD FOR SITTING BY WHILE GENOCIDE TAKES PLACE! We are getting to the bottom of the problem in communication here. Thank you for the capital letters. Now here are mine. THE QUESTION WAS NOT WHETHER YOU BLAME THE US! Fred - You are answering a question that was not asked. That is why you think you are answering my questions, but you are NOT. This was the question I asked, which immediately preceded the part you posted: Just how did the UN make it to your list of "bad guys"? For your information, I also blamed the world for standing by for years while genocide was taking place in Europe. However, it is beyond pale to try to make an analogy of that to Iraq's position of today, since THERE IS NO GENOCIDE TAKING PLACE NOW, which would necessitate immediate action. Even less logical is to try to blame the UN for not supporting the US aggression onto Iraq at this point, on grounds that they are "irrelevant" because they are standing by and watching a genocide that is NOT taking place, probably because they believe war is the least desirable of all outcomes. Amazing hypocrisy. I never thought I would live to see such illogical arguments take center stage in such important decisions in international arena as invasion of a country that has never posed a threat to your own. Another question from the post you replied to, which you have not thought to reply was: Do you think, for example, the US will [agree to an international body that judges governments according to what atrocities they commit]? Hell, your country even withdrew from the International Criminal Court, because Americans would not be exempt from it! The UN could have enforced 1441. Fred - Please do not hate me for saying this, but this is the last time I am answering this question, for, frankly, I am sick of saying the same things and am beginning to worry about both my ability to communicate and your ability to understand and retain counterarguments. Here it goes: (1) Res 1441 was a UN Security Council resolution, not a US bilateral agreement with Iraq. As such, only the UN Security Council could decide what to do about it in case of its material breach. (2) Nowhere in Res 1441 is there a clause threatening war, invasion, or anything remotely reminiscent of these two words. It says appropriate measures will be taken. Those measures can only be decided on by the UN Security Council, who issued the resolution. Not the US. (3) If the US did not have such itchy feet to go immediately to war, other ways of enforcement could be devised. But no. US wanted war and they got it.