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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcky who wrote (52881)	10/18/2002 12:06:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You said a) North Korea has just admitted to harboring a secret nuclear program, and a preemptive military strike of North Korean is a non-viable option. and b) Does this imply the president's current strategy to economically contain and deter Pyongyang is a sign that Bush is favoring a weak America? No, b) is false because a) is true. If the answer to a) was false, and pre-emption was an extremely viable option, yet Bush refused to even consider it, then I might well say that b) was true -- Bush did favor a weaker America. Come on, I know you get this, your own arguments show it. The people who are now using North Korea as an argument against US action in the Gulf would use anything as an argument against US action in the Gulf (certainly, they would have a far more plausible argument if North Korea had lived up to its agreements) -- the only consistent piece of their argument is its conclusion, that the US should NOT take action in the Gulf.

To: jcky who wrote (52881)	10/18/2002 12:27:15 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It is well within our capability to simultaneously develop alternative sources of energy while transitioning away from Mideast oil Statements like this one always smell to me of "Central Planning." "Lets have a Government program, (Run by "Wesley Mouch"), to develop a new energy source and a new gas saving motor." We end up with ethanol, a great boondoggle for midwest farmers, and some new east coast train, a great source of income for a Corporation run by "Orren Boyle." We will switch over to a different fuel and transportation system when it is profitable to do so. If Oil prices go up to stay, for any reason, the switch will be made. All the Government can do is slow down and mess up the process. I find this rhetoric from the left to "decrease our reliance upon Mideast oil and channel these needs upon the other resources available to us," is nothing more than more attempts at "Central Planning" to try to get people out of their cars and back on the buses that the left thinks they belong on. Or at least into tiny cars in which they can crouch and be "happy" to make the "Sacrifice" to "Save the Planet."