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

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148836)	10/24/2004 12:08:22 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Personally, after the way France and Germany have been conducting their foreign policy (purely for cash, it seems), I don't think they are in any position to appoint themselves moral arbiters. Substitute the USA for France and Germany and repeat that same sentence. Lets not be so arrogant to assume that the wealthiest nation on the planet is not motivated by money from time to time.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148836)	10/24/2004 2:22:01 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Personally, after the way France and Germany have been conducting their foreign policy (purely for cash, it seems), I don't think they are in any position to appoint themselves moral arbiters. You, however, seem to be forever in position of self-appointed grand arbiter of morality, civility, and everything else. The "purely for cash" business is ridiculous, the governments of Germany and France were pretty much in line with both local and global public opinion on W's war. Anyway, I don't exactly see how doing things "purely for cash" counts as a negative in W's world, since his main political goal, even more so than invading Iraq and other sundry "war president" certitudes, always seems to be more tax cuts for rich people.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148836)	10/25/2004 11:09:05 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If you think France and Germany have to lend their (largely symbolic) support to a US move for it to be "legitimate" then you're entitled to your opinion. From strictly commercial and domestic political standpoints, which is what the Germans and French seem to understand best, not supporting the US invasion made a lot of sense. Why do any heavy lifting to secure oil supplies if the bulk of the dirty work was [again] going to be done by the US? Why pay for oil security if the US had clearly signalled its intention to invade Iraq unilaterally? Why risk the wrath of the voters if a reflexive anti-US stance increased chances of re-election? Seems fairly simple to me. Economic and domestic political interests coincided in this case to preclude France and Germany from doing the right thing. The problem will be one of ultimate perceptions. While the US and the UK are the only major powers fighting the Jihadists with any kind of zeal, such zeal is suspect and will become even more suspect if Kerry is elected and Blair dumped. If my thinking that a show of weakness to the Jihadists is deadly, then the French and Germans are in for a very rough time as they have in essence capitulated to them at a time when their own domestic Muslim populations are growing.