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: hmaly who wrote (156420)	12/18/2002 2:55:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578921

Ted Re.. think your second item is correct, and the third is partially correct.......I don't believe the War on Terrorism is being waged as aggressively as it could be. Now why would you think that? Taking out Saddam and installing a democracy is part of Gw's war on terrorism. As I explained in my posts to Alighieri several wks. ago, Iraq is the best place to start. And just in case you think I am off the wall, read this. Iraq may be the best place for you to start but its not for me. I want most of our efforts directed at Al Qaeda. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_51/b3813014.htm Especially this part. The fear within the Arab regimes contrasts sharply with the mounting confidence of many Bush officials. These aides want to use a liberated Iraq as a platform to promote democracy, liberal capitalism, and women's rights in these authoritarian states. They argue that poverty and lack of outlets for political expression create a breeding ground for extremists, and that it's time to put an end to this state of affairs. "The Arab world has been exempt from the progress of the 20th century," says one top Bush Administration policymaker. "That is its history but it doesn't have to be its fate. Administration officials pledge that the U.S. will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to create a model society for the region. Declared Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in a recent speech: "I believe there is an opportunity here to liberate one of the most talented populations in the Arab world with positive effects throughout the Middle East." The writer must be a Rep. Any fool can see that very little of the above is happening in Afghanistan. In fact, the complaints from that country re reneged promises are growing louder. However, Lott is a Senator and was expected to be the Majority Leader. Those two titles make his racism all that much more deadly. So please, stop your whining. Reps. have a bad name when it comes to race.........and its from their own doings< Not so. Its amazing how you seem to simply ignore history anytime you chose. The simple truth is that the democratic party was the party of the south and racists from the civil war until 1960, when Johnson managed to pass the civil rights acts over the objections of the southern democrats. Yes, and look who took over. In fact the rep. you blame for the racist overtones of the rep. party, in fact were southern democrats, who switched parties, after the northern democrats, along with some rep. turned on them by voting for Johnsons liberal programs for the blacks. Thank you, you made my point. Southern Dems., who did not like civil rights legislation because it encouraged equality of the races, jumped to the Rep. party. Was Lott one of them? Now, after a few southern dem. bolted to the republican party, you say the republican party has a history of racism. Not so. A few senators who switched to republicans were racist, but the republican party doesn't have near the history of the democratic party as to racism. Its been almost 50 years since the sixties.......that's long enough history in my book. ted