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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (179772)	9/12/2001 2:36:05 AM
From: cAPSLOCK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

(The Bush administration has the aggravating habit of claiming that every circumstance supports their fixed positions, even if the circumstance has completely changed from last month's argument.) Strange habit that... How does it feel anyway? regards cAPS

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (179772)	9/12/2001 10:24:39 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

"saying that today's attack is a reason to spend billions on missile defense is an insult to all our intelligences" I did not hear him say that, BUT it is not an insult to our intelligences (although it sounds like bad timing). You libs are so sure that nobody will hurt us in the ways that the administration feels they might it leads me to believe you have very limited intelligence. Afghanistan and Pakistan already have missile delivery systems. Not good enough to get here, but they will be in a FEW years. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that you guys feel so damn safe, especially after yesterday. Can you not see what these people will do? Your stupid and simplistic statement "They don't want to use weapons that have a return address on them" is soooooo naive that it is unbeleivable. I am no expert, but could EASILY see a scenario where somenting like Iran could shoot one off from Iraq for instance. What a mess that would be. I would rather save our people and then figure out what those crazies are up to, and I guess you would rather have it the other way around. To make the statements that you and Communist Spirit do suggests that you think our own leaders are JUST AS EVIL as the people who did the damage yesterday OR that you are smarter than they are. Both of those assumptions are ridiculous imo. Feel free to offer a 3rd suggestion if those two are not the reasons you slam our president and defense community's plans for defending our country in the FUTURE. Go way out on a limb and figure we will be around for another 50 plus years, not just one or two. It will take a while to perfect a system like that, so it is not a particularly good strategy to start on it AFTER someone nukes SF or NY or DC or LA or ANY OF OUR CITIES. I for one KNOW that GWB and Rumsfeld have our best interests in mind, and although I view myself as relatively smart (compared to the masses) I do not even think I am in the same league as the men and women running our defense and intelligence community. Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Bush - Idiots or evil, what is your pick? I know what Communist boy's position is (he thinks they are evil), but you seem smarter than he does (by a long way).

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (179772)	9/12/2001 5:37:33 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769667

From The Federalist: In the fresh blood of this predictable tragedy, we recall the words of President Ronald Reagan from 1983, reprinted in The Federalist last week, concerning how military budgets should be determined. His words are poignant at this moment: "What seems to have been lost in all this debate is the simple truth of how a defense budget is arrived at. It isn't done by deciding to spend a certain number of dollars. ... We start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all the possible threats against our security. Then a strategy for strengthening peace and defending against those threats must be agreed upon. And, finally, our defense establishment must be evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any or all of the potential threats. The cost of achieving these ends is totaled up, and the result is the budget for national defense. ... Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. 'Deterrence' means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression."