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: i-node who wrote (157153)	1/2/2003 9:06:31 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580150

You're changing the subject. The point is that Saddam had what amounted to an amnesty opportunity. I keep forgetting that I need to write in more literal and obvious language for you....so let me try again. If I was Saddam, I would not know what the opportunity is. The administration has shifted policy (if you can call it that) back and forth and has put forward several mixed messages, depending on who does the talking. In case you don't get it again, there are a couple of important implications here. One is that the Iraqis can't possibly know for sure how to react and what consequences they can expect from any response they provide. The other is that the members of the adminstration have contradicted one another, which also means that they are in disarray on the topic and further confuse the Iraqis on the consequence to any response. You have a problem with this? Not until it becomes a motivating factor for war. You, protector of the Iraqi people,... You are the one who keeps hinting that this is a humanitarian mission. There are millions on the verge of starvation on Malawi and the Sudan and you talk about Iraqi liberation from oppression. When was the last time you heard an American politician take up these causes...oh, I forget, there is nothing but misery there...and no oil. What a joke. Under Clinton, NK has built nuclear weapons and enhanced their delivery systems. No, "appeasement" is definitely the correct term. One of the articles I read yesterday said that it is very likely that NK has had rudamentary nukes for many years, dating back to Reagan and Bush 1. What the HELL does it matter what THEY said? It does a great deal. The point is that the NKs feel justifiably threatened, which is what BUSH DID OPENLY WHEN HE CALLED THEM EVIL and published his doctrine, without any viable plan for a response to a potential flare up in NK or Iran for that matter. BUSH IS A COWBOY ON A BUCKING BRONCO NOW AND HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DISMOUNT. So, instead of pursuing a quiet policy of engagement, he has created a crisis fro which he does not have a solution other than to ask for help from the IAEA (that's right, the same agency that discredited him when he said that pictures of some new buildings in Iraq were proof of renewed nuke activity there. The inspectors have since visited those infamous buildings, by the way). Al