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 (152526)	9/28/2002 10:16:40 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1586142

America's attitude was very different while these horrors were actually going on. There is controversy over whether the United States supplied ingredients for the gas, or merely supplied helicopters and other useful equipment, or did nothing more than smother the odd unfriendly U.N. resolution. But there is no question that we knew all about it and looked the other way. The administration of the time included some of the same people as the current administration, or their father. Any indignation on this subject that comes without a fairly abject apology is worthless. The above statement is inaccurate. We did NOT look the other way; in fact, we supported the resolution against Iraq. This is, however, the same tired old liberal argument -- "we supplied Iraq with certain items, therefore we can never, into perpetuity, have recourse against them". This is an utterly stupid position and shows how weak the liberal argument AGAINST Iraq is.

To: Alighieri who wrote (152526)	9/28/2002 2:46:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586142

Ours Not To Reason Why Shouldn't Americans have some kind of role in deciding whether we go to war against Iraq? By Michael Kinsley Friday, September 27, 2002; Page A23 Al, this guy from the WA Post captures exactly how this effort to go to war has been handled. Had the administration been more forthright, they would not be having nearly the problems they are having right now. They never had the evidence or solid reasons needed to support a preemptive strike, so instead came up with vague allegations and suppositions. It became a little bit like "the emperor with no clothes". Intuitively and masterfully, I might add, Gore picked up on this issue and also realized that people who were opposed were afraid to speak out for fear of being cast as a benedict arnold. It should have been Kennedy who spoke out first......after all, who could call him a traitor with his lineage but it was Gore who had the cajones. And what he's done is popped the bubble of pretension and guile around this issue and for the first time, there is real debate. ted