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: tejek who wrote (133060)	2/18/2001 8:30:25 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570748

Ted, I think that Frank's post was purely sarcastic. It is too bad we all didn't line up and support the President after the Gulf of Tonkin. Maybe we could have lost another 50,000 teenagers in Vietnam had we been more "patriotic". Scumbria

To: tejek who wrote (133060)	2/18/2001 11:23:28 AM
From: f.simons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570748

Why not the Israelis? What about the Australians? Where were the Canadians? The Israelis and the Americans agreed a long time ago that Israel simply cannot be involved in military actions like this. That is why Israel didn't even counter-attack when Saddam was raining missiles down on them during the Gulf war. What about the Australians? Where were the Canadians? There are serious logistical problems involved for both countries in addition to the fact that both were probably home minding their own business. American and British pilots and planes are the ones being threatened by Saddam's radar installations. You can argue that we shouldn't have forces there at this point, but not that they don't have a right to defend themselves once there. Why did Jordan and Egypt condemn the move. Because it is easy to do. The area is a little tender now, and their interests in placating Saddam are greater than other considerations. Ditto for the French. They recently refused to participate in efforts to have a human rights censure of the Chinese on the grounds that it could affect trade. As usual, the French are not shy about accepting the benefits of the military efforts of other countries, while repectfully declining to share in the costs of them. Like Harry, are you upset because I am not behaving blindly patriotic......that whatever the President does has to be good for the country...no matter what. I don't have a clue who Harry is. If he posted something, I came on the thread after his post. In any event, I am not upset muchless blindly patriotic. You haven't read many of my political posts to even suggest such a thing. I don't particularly like Bush, and certainly did not vote for him. I am not even sure I agree with the strikes that were made. However, to suggest that the failure of other "allies" to participate proves that the strikes were ill-advised, which was your original point, is simply inaccurate, IMO. Frank

To: tejek who wrote (133060)	2/18/2001 1:56:51 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570748

Ted Re..So what's the deal? Like Harry, are you upset because I am not behaving blindly patriotic......that whatever the President does has to be good for the country...no matter what.<<<< Ted, in an earlier post you said I should reread your post. I did. Why not give me the same courtesy. To:tejek who wrote (133025) From: hmaly Saturday, Feb 17, 2001 11:35 AM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 133080 Ted. ..Re ..I apologize for my rants re Bush and his attack of Iraq this afternoon. While my position has not changed, it was not necessary for me to go off. Hopefully, for all of our sakes, this military attack will not escalate into war.<<<<<<< Above is your apology and here is my answer. <<<<<I have no problem with an apology. But I would like to point out the obvious. You seem to have let your hatred for GW overshadow any sense of patriotism. If it indeed was a war, as you claim, then any citizen of this country should back the president, until it is substantiated that it indeed was stupid. You seem to have left your hatred (or maybe greed as you stated you were worried about the stock market) overwhelm any concern for our pilots on the mission, and the safety of the pilots who have to fly in the no fly zone in the future. You claim it was just a rant, but when you let your rants overshadow your patriotism, haven't you let the rants control your sense of decency and honor? Maybe it is time to examine your positions and see if they also are controlled by the hatred, rather than they are the right thing to do. The fact whether there should be a no fly zone or any sanctions against Saddam are different questions. Our pilots deserve our support from all of us, not just the republicans. <<<<<< Please note that I said I have no problem with an apology. But I would like to point out the obvious. You seem to have let your hatred for GW overshadow any sense of patriotism. <<<<< I said you have let your hatred of GW overshadow any sense of patriotism. I did not attack your patriotism. I said that your posts conveyed that. I also said Maybe it is time to examine your positions and see if they also are controlled by the hatred, rather than they are the right thing to do. <<<< In that sentence I was asking if you shouldn't reexamine your positions with that in mind? I was not, I repeat, I was not attacking your patriotism, I was attacking your hatred of GW; and wondering if that hatred hasn't unwittingly made you seem unpatriotic. . Perhaps if you would have accepted my post in the spirit it was given, you wouldn't need to answer questions about your patriotism now.