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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3225)	1/10/2004 10:58:19 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

And it was this presence that Bin Laden personally cited was his rationale for targeting the US on 9/11. Bin Laden, UN vote and Iraq are different issues. I say go after Bin Laden. Flush him out kill him. there never was a vote Yes we can debate technicality. But there was an attempt by the US diplomatic core at the UN to bring it to the floor for a vote. They lobbied countries very publicly prior to the vote. Instead they should have just pressed on with 1441 and not lobbied the way they did. And I think that also Russia said they would veto along with France. placing France's own economic interests over regional and international stability Hawk, in retrospect, shouldn't Bush have done the same. After all we expect our leaders *to balance* the need for people's economic well being as well as physical safety and security. Not be only for miltary solution and worse still propose that as a solution hastily. According to who's standard? Your obviously biased one? I have always stated that for all my opposition to GWB and his team, I have a opposite view of Bush Sr. and his team. That is the reason GWB has tapped Jim Baker for the diplomacy that he is currently engaged in. I wonder why he did not use Jim Baker to buuild the coalition before the Iraqi invasion. For folks like me watching it from outside, we are left to conclude that there are people in the Administration who hate Jim Baker and hence prevented Bush from doing so. Hawk, here is something about Rumsfeld and his abrasive style. This is not propaganda: 1. Rumbling Rumsfeld [taken from Welcome to the Spin Machine by Michael Manville freezerbox.com] In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in Nutra Sweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors." The FDA had actually banned the drug based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame. *** ngin.tripod.com And here is an interesting read which brings out the differences in US foreign policy during past international cris and the present one with Iraq. mafhoum.com