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: tejek who wrote (149290)	8/8/2002 3:17:18 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579790

Not at all......it was Saddam who had invaded Kuwait.......we had every excuse to chase him back to Bagdad. Why did Bush Sr. back off? You and every other liberal on the planet would have been raising hell had he done so. What hypocrisy!

To: tejek who wrote (149290)	8/8/2002 3:19:20 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579790

Why is Clinton at fault but Bush Sr. is blameless? It is a question of responsibility. Bush had the responsibility to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. That's all. Then he handed the situation over to Clinton. Clinton had the responsibility to, at a minimum, maintain the status quo. He failed to do so. So it is Clinton's fault.

To: tejek who wrote (149290)	8/8/2002 8:20:09 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579790

Well, Bush Sr. didn't have nice hair and probably can't or won't get it up. Yet, he didn't take Saddam out. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Why is Clinton at fault but Bush Sr. is blameless? I guess I see them as apples and oranges. Bush Sr had the task of defending Kuwait, and we accomplished that. It would have been a great time to get rid of Hussein, but an objective above and beyond the original (successful) mission. And one that the left would have wussed out of anyways. Once the cease-fire was in place, defying the terms was a slap in the face of the US. Certainly not on the same level as a direct attack ala 9/11, but very different (worse) than a threat to one of our allies. Hussein picked a fight with one of Uncle Sam's friends, and Sam beat him up. Then later Hussein shoved Uncle Sam himself into a wall and Sam wimpered in the corner. That's the difference in my opinion. Maybe Hussein is a pretty good judge of character and resolve after all? Brian