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 Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (177846)	11/10/2003 6:08:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577886

straitstimes.asia1.com.sg Bremer: Expect more attacks BAGHDAD - Iraq's US governor Paul Bremer warned yesterday that guerillas would step up attacks to stop reconstruction efforts - a move that could prove 'fatal' for Iraq and the Middle East. He told Britain's Times newspaper that several hundred foreign militants had entered the country. But he vowed that US-led forces would not be driven out. 'The consequences of us not succeeding here would be very grave. They are for the Iraqis fatal, perhaps for the Middle East almost as fatal,' he said. -- Reuters

To: i-node who wrote (177846)	11/10/2003 7:47:19 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577886

The entire premise of the speech is that we should defer to foreign countries on protecting our own interests. We shouldn't. THEY don't defer to US. Who, besides the United States, has ever gone to the UN to request permission to go to war? We've done what we needed to do. It really doesn't matter what the French and Russians have to say -- after all, they were in cahoots with Saddam anyway, actually feeding him information while stonewalling us at the UN. It does matter! What doesn't matter is your bad attitude........and misinformation. ***************************************************** Former National Security Advisor Z. Brezinski's remarks from the New American Strategies for Security and Peace Conference** prospect.org <font color=brown>"Ladies and gentlemen, forty years ago almost to the day an important Presidential emissary was sent abroad by a beleaguered President of the United States. The United States was facing the prospect of nuclear war. These were the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Several emissaries went to our principal allies. One of them was a tough-minded former Secretary of State, Dean Acheson whose mission was to brief President De Gaulle and to solicit French support in what could be a nuclear war involving not just the United States and the Soviet Union but the entire NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact. The former Secretary of State briefed the French President and then said to him at the end of the briefing, I would now like to show you the evidence, the photographs that we have of Soviet missiles armed with nuclear weapons. The French President responded by saying, I do not wish to see the photographs. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me. Please tell him that France stands with America. Would any foreign leader today react the same way to an American emissary who would go abroad and say that country X is armed with weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States? There's food for thought in that question. Fifty-three years ago, almost the same month following the Soviet-sponsored assault by North Korea on South Korea, the Soviet Union boycotted a proposed resolution in the U.N. Security Council for a collective response to that act. That left the Soviet Union alone in opposition, stamping it as a global pariah. In the last three weeks there were two votes on the subject of the Middle East in the General Assembly of the United Nations. In one of them the vote was 133 to four. In the other one the vote was 141 to 4, and the four included the United States, Israel, Marshall Islands and Micronesia. All of our NATO allies voted with the majority including Great Britain, including the so-called new allies in Europe -- in fact almost all of the EU -- and Japan. I cite these events because I think they underline two very disturbing phenomena -- the loss of U.S. international credibility, the growing U.S. international isolation."

To: i-node who wrote (177846)	11/10/2003 8:20:51 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577886

The entire premise of the speech is that we should defer to foreign countries on protecting our own interests. We shouldn't. THEY don't defer to US. Who, besides the United States, has ever gone to the UN to request permission to go to war? bla bla bla.... That would be the convenient and only partisan diehard way to interpret the importance of allies and friends in the world in this or any circumstance....assuming that one bought into the idea that war on Iraq could fall under the category of self defense, a dubious conclusion, one could still make a strong argument that a diplomatic approach (such as the one achieved by bush the 1st) would have had a far better chance of success, during the operation or in its aftermath. What a loss to have almost no one in the world willing to get involved in even winning the peace. The handling of this adventure by the bushies is a case study of "how not to". It is exactly why trusting them with the nation for 4 more years would be irresponsible, and why recent polls indicate that a growing number of people would not like to see him re-elected. Al