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: Alighieri who wrote (149258)	8/8/2002 10:08:02 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577029

I thought this too...but now I am no longer sure. The rhetoric is really strong. I do hope it still however. Yes, I had second thoughts after I saw the satellite photos of that airstrip... You managed to turn the discussion "it's all Clinton's fault", as you so often do, instead of addressing the fundamentals of the situation, its effect on the world and the US. A strong president would NEVER have allowed the de facto ejection of the weapons inspectors. They were there as a condition of the ceasefire, which provided they would receive full and unfettered access. The moment that access was withdrawn, we should have INSTANTLY threatened, and if necessary, followed through with whatever military buildup was required to deal with the problem. If you REALLY want to talk about the fundamentals of the situation, that is it. Total mismanagement. An important aspect is that this weakness is seen by the Mideast community in an extremely negative way. My criticism of Clinton is not ad homenem. And if you think my reasoning doesn't apply, please refute it. But don't suggest that my statement isn't "reasoned" just because you don't agree with it.

To: Alighieri who wrote (149258)	8/8/2002 1:33:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577029

Because the United States was weak when the inspectors were forced out, we are today faced with the potential for a military crisis. Hopefully, future leaders will learn from this experience that the United States should NEVER allow itself to be under the control of a third-rate dictator like Saddam Hussein. If the nation is weak, as we were during the 90s, there will be a subsequent price that must be paid. That is what we're seeing today. This is FUD. Words like "under the control" have not been used by even the most hawkish people in the administration. And wow...now the nation is strong again suddenly after little more than a year and a new administration. You managed to turn the discussion "it's all Clinton's fault", as you so often do, instead of addressing the fundamentals of the situation, its effect on the world and the US. Al, you have to understand bombing is this administration's forte. Therefore, any administration that does not bomb on a regular basis is considered weak. Think in terms of the sixth grade school bully...........I think they grow up to be conservatives. <g> ted