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: i-node who wrote (149831)	8/16/2002 2:17:23 PM
From: g_w_north	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570342

<I think it is to be expected that Bush 43 is going to be criticized just by virtue of the fact that his father was president. But that criticism, frankly, is just downright shallow and without substance.> I'm just talking from personal experience. I had the privilege of attending one of the best private schools in Canada (if not the best) and I saw a lot of nepotism and extremely spoiled classmates. Frankly, I believe that not many 'silver spoon' peers of mine would ever have amounted to anything if not for their connections and money. I'm not speaking from a position of jealousy (trust me). Those students of privilege that did succeed on their own merits were most definitely not 'C' students. [On a humorous note-I'm reminded of an episode of "The Awful Truth" with Michael Moore (taken as humor not gospel) in which Moore confronts Bush during the 2000 election campaign and Bush yells to him; "Why don't you get a real job?"/cut to next scene/Michael Moore on telephone to father "Dad, do you have a major league baseball team or oil company?"] <While Bush 41 is roundly criticized for not "going to Baghdad", when I hear that criticism it immediately puts me on notice that there are either political motivations for the statement OR the person making the statement doesn't really understand what happened at the time. > The only people who REALLY understand what happened at the time are the insiders. When the coalition forces started to retreat I remember immediately thinking to myself; "Are they crazy?". If America didn't have a mandate to invade Iraq after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, launching missiles at Israel, gassing their own citizens etc..., then on what moral high ground do they stand today? What, the previous attacks weren't personal enough? Don't you get it? The Europeans, Middle East and parts of Asia have been living through terrorism for years and now America finally decides they have the moral authority based upon the first attack on their own soil? They should have gone to Baghdad 10 years ago when they have been UN backing and a solid coalition.