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 (153607)	10/18/2002 12:47:06 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1580439

To make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction, the United States must begin to live by the same set of rules we would like to impose on others and seriously embark on a course that will truly lead us to a nuclear weapons-free world. That is one of the most naive ideas that I have ever seen posted here. Tim

To: Alighieri who wrote (153607)	10/18/2002 12:57:22 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580439

Al, classic strawman by the anti-war spinsters. They point out the inconsistency between the hard-line stance against Iraq and the apparent softer stance against North Korea, then somehow say that's proof that war is absurd. The only reason Bush isn't taking a hard-line stance against North Korea, in my opinion, is that it's too soon to make that call. Yet the anti-war idiots are quick to call this "hypocrisy." I think it's a MUCH bigger vice to trust Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il more than George W. Bush. We've tried that all throughout the 90's, especially with that ill-fated nuclear test-ban treaty with North Korea in 1994. Even Clinton was bragging about his "successes" in negotiating with North Korea during his administration. This was early this year. Looks like another part of Clinton's "Image is Everything" foreign policy is unraveling. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (153607)	10/18/2002 12:58:57 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1580439

But what sense does it make to have a foreign policy that says we'll negotiate with North Korea, a state that is conceivably more of a threat because it already has such weapons, but we'll pre-emptively strike Iraq because we think it might be developing these weapons? Does it not occur to these nitwits that there is a HUGE difference: 1) NK ALREADY HAS Nukes. Iraq doesn't. For this reason, doing something about NK is much more difficult. Those who argue we should "wait" about Iraq should look long and hard at this situation and try to comprehend what it says. "If we go to war against Iraq he'll USE his WMD". A thinking person would see this is as a reason to move NOW before he gets MORE (quantity) and MORE (deliverable) WMD. I cannot imagine an adult not being able to see this. 2) It would be foolhardy to negotiate with Iraq, just as it was for Clinton to negotiate with NK in '94. Stupid. Both these countries have shown themselves to be incapable of abiding by their agreements. 3) It is relatively easy for us to deal with Saddam because we are already at war with Iraq, if on a limited basis. We are not already at war with NK. Unfortunately, many countries around the world have or are developing weapons of mass destruction. We can't possibly go around the world waging selective pre-emptive strikes against them. Ideally, only the United States would have nukes. But that's not the real world. To the extent we can stop others from developing or possessing nukes, we should do so. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE LIBERAL NOTION OF NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION? Back when I was liberal that was a keystone of the platform. Does it only apply to the US now, and it is okay for foreign dictatorships to own nukes?

To: Alighieri who wrote (153607)	10/18/2002 1:58:20 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580439

U.S. hypocrisy revealed Fri Oct 18, 7:46 AM ET Medea Benjamin Al, several nites ago, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune was on the news talking about the guys arrested in Buffalo on terrorist charges. This reporter is saying that many of the charges were incorrect. For an example, it was claimed that one guy has two SS cards with different numbers. It turns out that the guy was carrying his and his brother's SS cards. There were a number of indiscrepancies like that. That doesn't change the fact that the guys were training in Pakistan in spite of their claims they thought they would be fighting infidels in Pakistan, and not the US [their training occurred before 9/11]. What's disturbing is the gov't's need to trump up the charges, and then when proven erroneous, unwilling to correct the error publicly. Shades of the 1950's witch hunt.......... ted