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: SilentZ who wrote (146128)	4/24/2002 8:30:16 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574541

disagree that Bush handled it perfectly. If he had, Saddam wouldn't have still been in power after '91 This is, simply put, wrong. As Bush-I has pointed out, had we marched into Baghdad, which we could have done, the United States would have been an occupying power in an Arab nation. Furthermore, we had totally defeated the guy, and there was every reason to expect his beligerance would be contained. It would have been, had the succeeding administration had any foreign policy gumption. Again, the important point is that the United States occupying Iraq would have left us in an untenable position with respect to the Arab countries, and in fact, to the rest of the world. Instead of fighting Iraq, we would have been fighting the rest of them, right down to Kuwait. Bush was totally measured in his conduct of the war, and I believe history will bear this out. Right now, you have Monday-morning quarterbacks in both parties who speak before they think.

To: SilentZ who wrote (146128)	4/24/2002 8:32:56 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574541

disagree that Bush handled it perfectly. If he had, Saddam wouldn't have still been in power after '91 This is, simply put, wrong. As Bush-I has pointed out, had we marched into Baghdad, which we could have done, the United States would have been an occupying power in an Arab nation. Furthermore, we had totally defeated the guy, and there was every reason to expect his beligerance would be contained. It would have been, had the succeeding administration had any foreign policy gumption. Again, the important point is that the United States occupying Iraq would have left us in an untenable position with respect to the Arab countries, and in fact, to the rest of the world. Instead of fighting Iraq, we would have been fighting the rest of them, right down to Kuwait. Bush was totally measured in his conduct of the war, and I believe history will bear this out. Right now, you have Monday-morning quarterbacks in both parties who speak before they think. McCain in '04, seriously... He's running. But if you dislike government interfering in the affairs of people, McCain may not be the best candidate. I would hesitate to vote Bush out because Bush has proven himself to be such a great manager (could be I'm just comparing him with the lack of management skills from the previous administration). But McCain is a big spending liberal, Republican labels aside...