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: The Philosopher who wrote (28339)	6/3/2004 11:08:34 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 81568

Yes Christopher, your truths, as you have fought so many battles in your life, take a priority here. Good night all. Me tired. Truth is always a concern sir.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (28339)	6/3/2004 11:39:37 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Saddam had no WMD's. We've searched the place many times, have spent BILLIONS searching. Nothing. What you're talking about is back in the 80's and early 90's. That's 15-20 years ago. Most WMD's are unstable and disintegrate quickly. Plus Clinton bombed every suspected WMD's site over and over and UN inspectors got a lot of it, or all of it. No, Bush is either a huge liar or totally inept. Take your pick.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (28339)	6/4/2004 1:59:01 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz those 20 year old weapons we gave him the materials to make really don't amount to much in the way of a reason....because THEY were not the reason the Bush invaded.....he was TRYING to find REAL dangers....remember that could be launched in 45 MINUTES?....to QUOTE this administration Sovereign Iraq? Le Monde \| Editorial Tuesday 2 June 2004 Iraq has now been gifted with a transition government which replaces the Interim Government Council and which is supposed to be replaced by a definitive administration after elections at the beginning of 2005. This stage has been presented as a success by George Bush, who spoke of a "day full of hope for the Iraqi people(...) and for the American people." In fact, good news is rare these days for Washington where one more often hears about attacks and guerilla warfare. In this context, the team that has more or less appointed itself, with the support of American administrator Paul Bremer and the approval of UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, will be welcome. President Bush expects it to renew his popularity, which has been in freefall at home as well as abroad a few months away from elections. We cannot, however, as did Mr. Bush, speak of a transfer of "full sovereignty". Iraq is an occupied country and the Iraqis are still not masters of their own destiny. In fact therefore, it's a question of a transfer of some power from the occupier to the occupied. While he's getting ready for a difficult diplomatic ordeal in Europe, where he must participate Saturday in the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Normandy Landing before receiving the G-8, George Bush may call himself at ease. The American-British couple's amendments to their proposed UN resolution have been well-received by the UN Security Council, even if some members believe that they still remain inadequate. However, it's on the ground that everything will play out; first of all, between now and June 30, the date of the official transfer of power to the new authorities; then, in the months that precede elections. The transition government must prove to Iraqis - who are more and more anti-Americans - that it is not just a little less of a puppet authority than the last one. It will have to navigate a delicate course. How can the new leadership construct a popular base without alienating the hand that has chosen, fed, and protected them? How can the government assure its credibility while the American Proconsulate continues to extend its influence through the administration via the security forces? How can close relations be maintained with Washington, while Iraqi public opinion is enflamed white hot against an occupier accused of brutally suppressing the resistance? At the same time, the White House, desperately seeking diplomatic, financial, and troop support, will have to clarify its intentions if it wants to convince anyone: to fix a cut-off date for the American military presence in Iraq; to specify the prerogatives conceded to the new power; and above all, to become discreet and "humble", a term George Bush used right after his election, but which is foreign to his observed behavior. This will be all the more difficult as Washington is hardly in the habit of sharing power with its allies, much less control of its armed forces. Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.