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: Mr. Whist who wrote (252628)	5/3/2002 11:16:29 AM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

>The term "at war" serves as a smoke-screen for the GOP plan to cut taxes, reward fat cats, increase our national debt and let our children and grandchildren figure out how the debt will be paid. I suppose that you would rather have our descendants live in a world where terrorists and the regimes that support had been allowed to proliferate unchecked? If our ancestors had thought like that, we'd all be speaking German. As history has proven, freedom comes with a hefty price tag in terms of both human and economic sacrifice.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (252628)	5/3/2002 11:17:52 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The notion that we are NOT at war flies in the face of the facts and the reality of the situation. A typical flapster post I might add. Tell Johnny Michael Spann's wife and young children we are not at war, you freakin' crapdoodle....With over three thousand dead Americans, your comments are a slap in the face and a despicable insult to those civilians and service personnel who have already made the ultimate sacrifice so jackasses like you can continue to spout your crapola in the safety and comfort you take for granted...... What a POS you are. JLA

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (252628)	5/3/2002 11:18:05 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

RE: The notion that we are "at war" >>> Yeah, but it makes for catchy sound bites.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (252628)	5/3/2002 11:27:22 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

We are not retaliating, per se. We are trying to destroy the infrastructure of Middle Eastern terrorism, beginning with Al- Quaida. The idea is to prevent future attacks, especially those that might employ weapons of mass destruction. We are also seeking to deal more forcibly with regimes that represent a threat to American interests, and themselves seek weapons of mass destruction. Whether that means going to war, or Big Stick diplomacy remains to be seen. However, we are still in the endgame of a substantial military action in Afghanistan, and overall, it is useful to invoke the paradigm of war.......