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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (248291)	4/16/2002 2:58:19 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Politically correct posturing with Arafart. This seem to me to be a retarded statement. Can you explain it" Isn't it true that we were not going to deal with Arafat until the Europeans (and "moderate" Arab nations) yelled so loudly that we changed position? Correct me if I am wrong, but I have thought it was ALWAYS America's policy not to deal with terrorists. Is Arafat a terrorist or an elected leader of his people? I think he is a terrorist. I am open minded, and still willing to consider otherwise if someone can point out what justifies his killing of civilians. The pat answer of "Israeli and U.S. policies" does not cut it with me. Which policies? After that is answered then one must ask why the policies were put in place. From what I can tell, all of the offensive (to Arabs and Europeans) Israeli "policies" have been put in place to PROTECT Israeli citizens. Something that I expect from my own government, and something I think should be allowed to the Israelis. "Without talking there can be no understanding" Thomas, I am surprised at this line of thinking from you. What do you think talking to Arafat will make the U.S. understand? Should we have the same philosophy with OBL? I think we should have a policy where we talk with countries that renounce terrorism and conduct themselves in a civilized manner. Otherwise we are dealing with terrorists, which I believe sets a bad precedent. I know you are a strong supporter of President Bush. But it seems like you are for a position that I would expect you to be against. I am not a retard, nor do I think that it is retarded to see an incosistancy in Bush's position on terrorism. I am no longer SURE what it is. I think that it is "we are against all terrorism unless Europe or "moderate" Arab nations are offended by it".