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: Elroy who wrote (206251)	10/13/2004 10:55:23 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577914

You neglect to mention that the UN failed to remove the threat posed by Saddam. As long as he was around and in power, he was a potential danger to the world. At some point the decision was made that rather than punish the 20 million Iraqi people with sanctions for another 1 or 2 or 3 DECADES, it was preferable to remove his regime by force. And at this point in the process, THE UN COMPLETELY FAILED TO EXECUTE. I think those in your camp really want a UN that bends unconditionally to America's will. I am an American too, but i consider such views destined for the dustbin of historical failure. For example, if you think it is the UN's role to remove leaders it considers illegal or dangerous, why are we not insisting that this be done by force with NK or Iran, or Pakistan to mention a few? Anoter example... UN members such as France, Germany, Russia, China and other smaller members asked for time so inspectors in country with unprecedented access to the country in question, thanks no doubt to the military threat applied by the US? Why are you calling a failure a path that was never given a chance to be exercised? And, knowing now that in fact inspections kept Saddam in the box and unable to re-arm, AND, seeing the disastrous results of the US rush to war, how can anyone consider this a failure of the UN? How do you explain the UN's absence in the "courageous" building process that has going on for the past year and is going on today in Iraq??? First you should explain the refusal of the US to allow the UN a full partnership at the table of how Iraq should be manouvered into the future. Overtly and stupidly telling member nations to forgive Iraqi debt, provide troops and money, but giving no say in the political and physical reconstruction effort, and excluding nations from even bidding....can you really expect anything but a loud FU from these other countries, with which Bush says he has negotiated in good faith. Al

To: Elroy who wrote (206251)	10/13/2004 11:14:20 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577914

OK? They hate the SOB. He has scared the world with impulse and rhetoric. No one will help him and the country pays the price of his cowboy dimplomacy. Al ========================================================== Germany in rethink on Iraq force deployment By Hugh Williamson and Gerrit Wiesmann in Berlin Published: October 12 2004 22:07 \| Last updated: October 12 2004 22:07 Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated on Tuesday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger. In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government’s resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying: “At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future].” Mr Struck also welcomed Mr Kerry’s proposal that he would convene an international conference on Iraq including countries that opposed the war if he were to win next month's election. Germany would certainly attend, Mr Struck said. “This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference.” Berlin has refused to comment on the outcome of the US election, but Mr Struck's comments are significant as Mr Kerry has argued that he would be able to draw in countries to work in Iraq that opposed the war. Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, was a leading opponent of the US-led Iraq war and his re-election in 2002 was secured in part on support for this stance.