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: g_w_north who wrote (155730)	12/5/2002 3:41:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585140

I want to know how Republicans believe the previous administration should have reacted to Iraq. I cannot speak for other Republicans. However, in '98, when Saddam refused to comply with the UN Resolution calling for weapons inspections, Clinton should have IMMEDIATELY threatened military action. If Saddam did not then reverse course, a massive military buildup should have been undertaken. Clinton's failure to do so has permanently made it impossible to expect compliance from Saddam again without force -- Saddam now realizes that he need only wait until the next Democrat administration to have his way again. Does anybody really believe that Bush would have pushed America to the brink of war had the economy stayed the course and September 11th not happened? (I'm talking about Iraq not Al Qaeda). First, it is Saddam Hussein that is pushing us to the brink of war. Bush RAN on getting Weapons inspectors back into Iraq. It is simply fulfilling a campaign promise, and I, for one, would have been angry had he not acted on it. The superpower has a responsibility to not abuse its power. Under Clinton, the power was squandered in fighting off media attacks concerning Clinton's sexual misconduct. Under Bush, the power of our nation is being used to bring about a safer world. True leadership, something we were devoid of during the period from '92 through '00, involves taking unpopular positions sometimes -- when contrary to polls. I don't believe you can point to a single example of such leadership during the Clinton years; I certainly can't think of any.

To: g_w_north who wrote (155730)	12/5/2002 4:46:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585140

I want to know how Republicans believe the previous administration should have reacted to Iraq. Does anybody really believe that Bush would have pushed America to the brink of war had the economy stayed the course and September 11th not happened? (I'm talking about Iraq not Al Qaeda). GW, they can't think otherwise........it would ruin their fantasy of a leader who is virginal. I've never understood why the Reps. always hate sex so much! ;~)) ted

To: g_w_north who wrote (155730)	12/5/2002 5:49:52 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1585140

GW Re.. want to know how Republicans believe the previous administration should have reacted to Iraq. Does anybody really believe that Bush would have pushed America to the brink of war had the economy stayed the course and September 11th not happened? (I'm talking about Iraq not Al Qaeda). Yes, I think he would have, for the same reason Gw went after Taliban. There were a lot of unconfirmed rumors that Iraq was behind the bombing of the twin towers in 93. Several wks ago George Will said that there was good evidence that Iraq was indeed behind the bombing. While I don't know what the evidence is, I believe George Will more than most. So, while Bill may have dismissed the reports, GW may now be convinced that Iraq was complicent, and could be one of the reasons for GW's hardline now.