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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (5640)	3/8/2004 9:14:43 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush has said that he would rather have these attacks offshore than on US soil. So would you prefer them in America? Saying so is an admission that he has not succeeded in wiping out the terrorists. No but he is certainly working on it. Much more than Kerry would be. Simple question: has the capture of Saddam reduced or increased the incidences of terrorist strikes in Iraq. Reduced. You're mistaken about the trend. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq to start with. Something else you're mistaken about. Zarqawi dispatched assassins to kill an Americna AID worker in Amman from Iraq -before the war. Not a single one of those 19 terrorists were Iraqis, OTOH, a wanted man involved in the first WTC attack was being given haven in Iraq by Saddam. He's currently wanted. The French newspapers made a mockery of Bush. And then to prove to the world how international cooperation produces results, they got Libya to surrender their nuclear program. The French were surprised by the Qaddafi move. The Indian intelligence along with the IAEA and other nations of the world such as France were successful in convincing Gaddafi. I don't know whether Indian intelligence was helpful. The IAEA wasn't - it was duped. France had nothing to do with turning Qaddafi and were surprised to find out about it. You're not very well informed. Here some education for you: Libyan N-deal Catches France by Surprise Financial Times ^ \| December 22 2003 \| Robert Graham France has been embarrassed at being kept in the dark by Britain and the US over their secret negotiations with Tripoli to halt Libya's development of weapons of mass destruction. ..... This apparent confusion between ministers has revealed the extent to which the French establishment was caught off guard by the weekend announcement of Libya's agreement to co-operate in curbing its WMD programmes and place them under international surveillance. Britain and the US in the space of three months have now forged two key agreements with Libya - the other being the $2.3bn (£1.4bn, ?1.9bn) accord for compensating the victims of the PanAm disaster over Lockerbie in 1988. In contrast France, is still struggling to force Tripoli to honour pledges for a far less generous settlement for the 170 people killed in the French airliner blown up by Libya over the Niger desert in 1989. ..... While French officials on Monday welcomed the Libyan WMD agreement, this could not conceal their surprise at the success of London and Washington in prevailing on the mercurial Libyan leader. The positive outcome of these secret negotiations has also provided a reminder of France's continued diplomatic isolation from Washington in the wake of differences over the Iraqi conflict.