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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (6914)	9/23/2001 3:01:47 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

My observation is that what you call subject is quite commonly referred by the word "thread." True. And I used the word "thread" as I did because at the top of the page we have SubjectMarks not ThreadMarks. I understand why you had the interpretation that you did and I'm a bit disappointed that you thought I was so stupid that I was using the beginning of the thread to mean "Impeach George W. Bush". Can they [it?] be that war is war and fair has little to do with it? In every war that I can think of Side A says they were righteous and Side B was evil; Side B says they are righteous and Side A is evil. The word fair doesn't come up very often. But a brief point on the sanctions. Forget the starving children; consider the sanctions and what we wanted out of them. Given everything that led up to them, I think the sanctions were the right choice. The expected outcome of inspections was not achieved. Then for a brief time we publicly stated that an objective was to weaken his supporting base [the people and military]. I don't know whether we still have both objectives of the sanctions, which one is primary, but it doesn't matter much. Neither objective is being satisfied by the sanctions and there is a strong indication that the sanctions give Sadam a "cause" to strengthen his base and rally additional support from terrorist organizations; plus the money that he does get for humanitarian assistance goes primarily to him and his military. If that's the unintended result of the sanctions, why do we want to continue them? Because it's fair? We're aiming at Sadam and shooting ourselves in the foot. Fair enough. Of course, he and Shrillary did the things that led people to that position. I disagree. Perhaps someday we'll discuss that on a PM or two. Take a few minutes to look at; os-connect.com Click on "Population Age" and then on "Under 15". If you click through the first four pages [numbered at the bottom of the page], you'll be able to view the 70 countries that have a population distribution where 40% or more of the population is under the age of 15. There could be lots of reasons for that demographic distortion, but you can filter through the list for countries that have been at war for a lengthy period of time [a large percentage] and you'll have a pretty good first cut at potential terrorist incubators. There's some additional countries that will be added to the list. Over the next few months/years, I'm more interested in how the world deals with environment in which these roaches [terrorists] thrive than I am in Bin Laden. One way or another Bin Laden will be finished. Hopefully, sooner rather than later. But the big race is whether the world can effectively deal with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction before the terrorist world makes or buys a nuke or a biological weapon. If we lose that race, the loss at the WTC will look like a handfull of deaths by mugging. We have two objectives, Bin Laden and world cooperation. Our response on Bin Laden must be adjusted by the greater objective of world cooperation in the long run. jttmab