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: Condor who wrote (116021)	10/1/2003 7:42:23 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>That wasn't the case at his recent UN address and it struck me as more of the same old same old "My way or the highway" bluster. With the coalition troops surrounded in Iraq by the Flintstone army I would have thought he would have been more conciliatory. Diss'ing the UN was IMO one of the most ill advised acts the US has ever undertaken. I fear it will cost the American people greatly for years to come. It is unfortunate because it was so unnecessary. Bilow, you are absolutely correct. unnecessarily piss off the world >>> The French never act until its too late.Twice lost their entire country in the last Century. 1. They could have joined the coalition , verbally at least, at the last moment and salvaged contracting ability and given blessing to the Coalition effort. 2. They could now give their blessing for Indian, Russian, and Turkeys troops to help in Iraq, but they wont. Apparently they will have to lose something to the terrorists- the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, a high speed train, before they recognize the seriousness of terrorism Thw war in Iraq has become a part of the war on terror and must be won. Are the French with us , or against us? They certainly do not appear to be neutral saying thus or so has to be done in Iraq and even then giving no promise of troops or support. Sig@letthemsleep.com