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: Neocon who wrote (7298)	10/30/2001 9:40:20 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I think that people generally feel frustrated because there seems to be a lack of what the media define as "progress". However as Team Bush has repeatedly warned, this is a long term campaign and there will be good days and bad days ahead. Its only been three weeks and it is too early to tell much or expect much of anything. JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (7298)	10/31/2001 9:38:26 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I agree that the situation surrounding the anthrax is not conclusive. You're sounding a bit like jla. On the other hand, from what I have read, even if it were home- grown anti- semites, they have been linking with Arab terrorists in the last few years. The anti-semites have been trying to get a hold of biological weapons since at least '97. in addition, we will probably have to deal with Iraq sooner or later anyway. Isn't that really the bottom line anyway? Whether it's you, Dave Ellen, Rumsfeld, or jla. You want the SOB [Saddam]and none of you really give a shit whether he was involved or not. The NGOs have mainly questioned whether their work will be harder because they are "Western", and thus not easily distinguished from the enemy. Such an understatement. The NGOs have flat out said that the US delivering aid to the country that it's bombing is stupid. We've bombed the Red Cross facility twice now; the Red Cross has stated quite emphatically that the wharehouse in question was designated to feed 50,000+ widows and maimed over the winter and that program is basically over....good thing the Red Cross provided the coordinates for that facility twice....more on that in a separate post. Actually, all of the reasons that you give against going into Pakistan seem to me to rebound against you. If there are a lot of pro-Taliban Pakistanis, we want to discourage them from replenishing the ranks. If the intelligence services have been supporting the Taliban, we want to prevent them from doing much of that now. We especially want to keep the radicals away from the nukes. Better to be invited in then to have to invade... What the hell have you been reading...somewhere between 5,000-10,000 Pakistanis have left for Afghanistan. We're not on station with the Pakistani intelligence, we're on a couple of dorky airfields in the middle of nowhere. A few hundred soldiers are going to stop 50,000 radical Pakistanis. If they go after the nukes, we'll carpet bomb them...if doesn't matter whether we're there on a couple of air fields or not. jttmab

To: Neocon who wrote (7298)	10/31/2001 9:51:15 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Next Bush policy... The International Red Cross has provided coordinates of it's facility twice now to the US and twice the US has bombed the Red Cross facility. The official position was that it was unintentional, but both NBC and CNN have reported that a DoD official has said that the Red Cross facility was intentionally targetted and sucessfully hit. [I've heard the same thing from a reliable and independent source (non-web)that the facility was intentionally targetted.] So here we have a brand new policy for the United States; the international Red Cross is an acceptable military target. Furthermore, it is the policy of the Bush Administration to deny to the world and all Americans that it was, in fact, intentional. I know that all the conservatives here don't believe that this rises to the seriousness of lying about having an extramarital affair....but my guess is that the rest of the world won't necessarily see it that way. jttmab