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: runes who wrote (70032)	4/26/2003 11:30:10 AM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Runes-- Of course I see the asymmetry, and the humor, in my anti-french positions. However, genocide and the crimes against humanity committed by Saddam were, IMO, legitimate, if not compelling reasons for UN intervention. Again, I didn't buy the Bush argument that Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US. However, he did constitute an immediate threat to the Iraqis. Equally importantly is that, IMO, the single most effective method for preventing future crimes against humanity is to give the clear message that criminals will be held accountable. I feel warm all over about the Hague trials of Milosevic. Now the imperialistic US is being accused by the noble french of exploiting the Iraqis. That doesn't fly in Peoria. Now back to the perfidious french; Give me one action the french took that advances justice. Was it the selling of the reactor, the secret oil trades, or what. I am not ingenious to doubt that all countries are motivated, correctly, by self-interest. However, when that is the sole motive, and other principles are ignored, it is wrong. E.g., I doubt whether the french have an anti-bribery law in international trade. We do. I'm trying to follow the Elf bribery scandal, where suspicions about involvement of top levels of french politicians have surfaced. There was no self-interest in the US involvement in the Balkans. It was to save Muslim lives. Israel was more critical of Milosevic than the Arab world. Bush, for a variety of reasons, IMO, is not up to the job of being president. The debt is staggering while he is cutting the taxes of the wealthy. My taxes are going up because the necessary services of the states and local communities need taxpayer support. Yet Bush claims to desire the lowering of taxes. Special interests have never had a better advocate in the White House. I do agree with Zonder that the invasion of Iraq had a cynical Bush motive of deflecting attention from the fading economy. Zonder's questions seem asking me to defend US policies, when I'm critical of them. However, stopping Saddam is good, for the reasons mentioned, and I'm glad Bush did it. fred

To: runes who wrote (70032)	4/28/2003 6:56:10 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 70976

you were chiding Zonder for criticizing (again) US policies even as you were criticizing (again) French policies There is, of course, a major difference in the way we criticize - I am criticizing the politics of the Bush administration, not "Americans", and with no insulting sentiment towards the American NATION a la "surrender monkeys", hypocrites, "the French", "I will never visit France again", etc etc etc... I wonder if this is too fine a point to hope recognition for. However, it is an important one, and clearly shows who among us is a more reasonable target for accusations of "rabid anti-xxxxism".