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 (156811)	12/27/2002 10:48:00 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579772

Labeling them so offensively serves no purpose but to enflame a tense situation, as you can see so clearly today. Do you actually believe that Bush "labeled" them this way indiscriminantly? A president who has proceeded with an extreme sense of direction and precision? He did not make the remark willy-nilly. Couple this with the perception that countries in the AoE will be dealt with force (Iraq is the first?) and there you have it. As we have seen, the "perceptions" of our enemies, as well as that of liberals, has been dead wrong. We DIDN'T attack Iraq without UN support. We DIDN'T fail to build a coalition. We HAVEN'T gone off half-cocked. Bush DIDN'T ignore the position of Colin Powell, and Powell HASN'T resigned in disgust. Perceptions, frankly, don't matter. Actions matter.

To: Alighieri who wrote (156811)	12/27/2002 10:53:28 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579772

Let me ask you a question...if they don't back off now, what do you think could happen next? Where you, and most liberals, are confused, is that you mistakenly believe that we should bow to the threats of these nations. "What if they don't back off"? It has been a rallying cry for liberals that "we don't want to piss ________ (fill in blank) off. He may USE his WMD against us". This attitude is, frankly, ridiculous, even stupid. So what? Why do you think he HAS WMD? You don't run away from such a confrontation. You stop it where it stands, take your losses, and move on. If diplomacy works, great. If it doesn't, you have to deal with it. Harshly. Because failure to do so means the problem simply gets bigger. We simply cannot allow the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons. It continues to amaze me that the same liberal mindset that roundly criticized the United States for its nuclear weapons buildup in the 60s & 70s now wants to allow such rogue nations as NK, Iraq, and Iran to have all the nukes they want. This attitude can only be described as lunacy. So, to answer your question, we do what we've done with Iraq. We try to get them to understand we won't tolerate it; if they don't, we kill whomever we have to to solve the problem. It is very possible NK can fall apart on its own, so I think it may be less urgent than Iraq. But he's a madman, and anything can happen. All the more reason we will have to deal with him forcefully. History will remember Carter's NK mistake as the cause of a great deal of human suffering, one way or the other.