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 (70641)	9/29/2003 12:39:39 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Once again-- I do not supports Bush's unilateralism Once again - Nobody cares if you support Bush. You support his invasion of Iraq. And that is what we are discussing. Oh and by the way, the invasion you supported WAS unilateral. It is obvious that the failure in Rwanda is due to the US, the failure to act in the Balkans was french and, especially German indifference, and the failure in Iraq is due to the US making the wrong case and french special interests. No such thing is "obvious", at least in the case of "French special interests". Let us solve this once and for all. Can you deny the below: (1) France trade with US is much more of a source of income than what they stood to gain as a state from the continuation of Saddam's regime (2) The best way to insure the sovereign debt France is owed by Iraq would be to support the US and make a deal for its rapid recuperation (3) Thereby, French would also have a foot in the door for the lucrative oil & construction deals in Iraq. And once again - there was no genocide in Iraq in the year 2003 that needed intervention. Stop trying to make it look like there was some genocide and nobody was doing anything about it. I understand you have a soft heart. But try to think with your head and you will see where all this is going.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (70641)	9/29/2003 1:48:45 PM
From: runes	Respond to of 70976

<<Once again-- I do not supports Bush's unilateralism.>> ...I didn't say that you did - I just wanted to make the point that Powell's commitment doesn't not deserve your applause. Anan's statement - I agree with you assessment (minus a few details on the sources of failure). As I told you in our debate six months ago - the UN (and the world) is growing on the human rights front. Friedman - Let's see "Our WAR with France" actually resulted in rather tepid posturing at the UN. No fireworks, no insults, just a little tentative butt sniffing. ...Then there's "the French campaign — "Operation America Must Fail" ". Funny, France has been quite clear that it will not oppose the US efforts to garner UN support (it will abstain). Must be that passive-agressive war tactic - leave the enemy alone and wait for him to shoot himself in the foot? What does that say about the US's position? (Self defeating?). ...Basically what happened is that Friedman tried to anticipate a new round of "Freedom fries" pugilism only to have his "war" enveloped in the jello of diplomacy. And for the record - ...The initial conflict - France refused to support going to war under resolution 1441 on the grounds that Iraq was cooperating and there wasa no evidence that Iraq had resumed their WMD programs. FRANCE WAS RIGHT. ...The latest round. France's position is that the US needs to stop the fuzzy :it will happen when it happens" planning and make real commitments to how and when it will end the Iraqi occupation. And again - FRANCE IS RIGHT. All of the "fuzzy logic" just adds to the suspicion that US's agenda involves exploitation more than liberation. ...No, I am not naive enough to believe that Chirac is doing this because of his love of humanity. Nor am I so cynical as to think that he is just trying to be first in the exploitation queue. He is doing it in order to boost his stature - both in France and in the eyes of the global community. ...But the crazy thing is that Chirac can earn his laurels and be right too. Because the Bush approach to Iraq has been so lame.