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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BWAC who wrote (66070)	9/19/2002 2:50:45 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Why didnt you answer his question. Obviously all those quotes came from dems back in 1998. So what you do is what you always do which is to call Bush names. What is the "real problem" you allude to. Are you rooting for it to fail miserabley--are you more interested in seeing bush fail than seeing america and the world succeed?

To: BWAC who wrote (66070)	9/19/2002 3:55:18 PM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

You didn't answer the question. What the question/information didn't fit your argument so you ignore it? You and Shrub will get your war. Why is it an issue with you if Bush is President and it isn't when Clinton was President. I think everyone would prefer no war to any war but that is not always the prudent response. I exchanged posts with Cary regarding what Bush should have done to prevent 9/11. Many, many Americans felt that Bush didn't do enough to try and prevent 9/11. Now you and other American's feel that removing Saddam is foolish. It sounds to me that Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I feel the facts warrant some action to remove Saddam. You seem to disagree because you don't like Bush (You haven't provided any points to back this up other than your bitter about Bush being President). When it fails miserably to solve the real problem. Why do you assume it WILL fail. Will it fail to remove Saddam from power? What is the real problem? I'll be wanting to hear your next plan. What was my first plan? Knowing you won't answer the questions from my previous post I'll provide the answers. 1. The president should " … take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 2. The president should " … send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with their own agreements and with international law." 3. "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily." 4. "The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later," 5. "I agree with using military force," 6. Iraq's weapons buildup is "a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential activities on a global basis." Item 1 was part of a resolution sponsored by Tom Daschle. Items 2 and 3 are Daschle quotes. Item 4 comes from Robert C. Byrd. Item 5 is Chris Dodd. Item 6 was from Bob Kerry. All Democrats, all speaking in opposition to President Bush’s plans for a military effort against Saddam Hussein. Wait! Did I say speaking “in opposition to President Bush’s plans for a military effort against Saddam”? Yup, I did. But those statements don’t sound like they’re opposed to military action, do they? Well, they’re not. The key, you see, is the timing. All of those statements were made in 1998, when a Democrat, Bill Clinton, was the President . . . not a Republican. Be honest, all this wah-babying is because you hate Bush. Grow Up, JS