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: Joe NYC who wrote (152316)	9/26/2002 12:07:47 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572214

I am unclear why this is germane to what we are talking about now. I don't think there was enough time between his inauguration and 9/11 to get a good picture of what this administration was all about. But clearly, since 9/11, military aggression seems to be its theme. I think 9/11 justifies the change of priorities. I think the response has been appropriate. I would hardly call it aggression. What do you object to as far as what happened between 9/11 and now? Of course, its aggression. With Afghanistan, the public bought it because a coalitionof nations was going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda who we were confident were linked to 9/11. The proposed attack on Iraq is a different story....the link between Saddam and al Qaeda is weak at best. Saddam is a Bush Sr. oversight that apparently Bush Jr wants to rectify. He needs to keep his personal goals out of the nation's business. Secondly, why do you assume I condoned all that happened during the last administration. I thought Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan were ridiculous and accomplished little....but then again, the efforts were very small, and certainly not on the level of a war. Does it mean that you gave the previous administration room for error to get half of the military actions wrong? If that's your measure, Bush can get Iraq wrong, and you should still be content. (After getting Afghanistan done right). Excuse me.......is this some kind of game to you? We are talking about American people who are going get killed in this war. I don't arbitrarily set limits on the number of people whom the president can get killed in war..........and then, so long as he doesn't exceed that arbitrary number, think everything is fine. Its unclear to me why they are ignoring domestic issues but ignoring them is what they're doing. And things are beginning to unravel badly. They are beginning to unravel badly? They began to unravel in Q1 2001, when the negative growth started, or if you want look for "root causes", it was when the bubble burst in Q1/Q2 2000, or even further back, when the bubble was allowed to be blown up. Back then, we were in for a mild recession.......things have worsened significantly since then. And the bubble has worked its way through and things are still not improving. More and more investors who have been around for a while know that stock valuations are at a reasonable level but are fearful to buy because no one has any assurance that the current administration will do what it takes to turn the economy around. In fact, its more than that.........many people believe O'Neill doesn't have a clue on how to turn things around. And after listening to him speak today, I believe they are right. Anyway, if anything, things are stabilizing now, with slow growth, which will hopefully turn into faster growth in 2003. The stock market just continues on its crash course, but what else is new? We have had steady pounding like this since March 2000, which is almost 2 1/2 years. And one day, even that will stabilize and turn around. Much like this administration you are in some serious denial but don't believe me......just look at the markets. We have not yet bottomed........that suggests there is no recovery in sight since the markets typically recover 6 mos before the economy does. If anything, this recession is worsening. My God, man, AMD is trading at $5 and INTC is moving towards single digits.........what more clues do you need? Re: Diplomatic efforts Developing consensus with our allies and pushing for a UN effort to bring an end to Saddam's antics. On the surface, the administration appears to be doing the latter and maybe even both, but in reality, they are managing to muddy up the waters and confuse the situation. This is an explanation of I am prepared to go to war when it can be justified; when all diplomatic measures have been tried and failed but not one millisecond before. I am with you on "when it can be justified" but you are completely wrong on the diplomatic part. Saddam doesn't give a damn about UN resolutions or whether there is a consensus among the allies of the US. He only understands force or the threat of force. How and from where the force (or threat) gets applied is irrelevant. I don't want a consensus for Saddam's sake.......I could give a flying fukk about Saddam. Its about our place in the world, and the perceptions that other countries have re the way we deal. Saddam can go to hell for all I care.......he's a two bit dictator who does not pose nearly the threat that bin Laden does. bin Laden and his crew are fundamentalist ideologues.....the worst enemy to have. Why we are wasting our resources on this Saddam sidebar is beyond me. I deleted your comments re the Germans but than I realized that this is more than a minor issue. The US has few equals in the world.......the English, the Germans and maybe the Canadians. The French are undependable and ready to go with the best deal. The Russians are always looking for a handout or an even trade. The Germans are not alone in having a problem with this war and the way Bush is handling it, and the best you can say is that they need therapy. Schroder will be around for awhile.....I suggest we mend this fence. ted ted