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 (157193)	1/1/2003 1:01:21 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580197

David Re...It bothers me because I believe a great number of people fall for it and come away believing Bush is a warmonger. On this thread, Ted and Al have both concluded that Bush is hell-bent on war with Iraq, Iran, and NK, when in fact, it is clear Bush prefers other means of solving these problems. But he has faced the reality that they may not be handled without war. With that I agree. Al and Ted and the dems have strangely come up with this convoluted theory, that somehow they can avoid war, by saying we have more reasons to go to war with NK,Yemen, Iran, etc. before we go to war with Iraq; therefore we shouldn't go to war with Iraq, we should go to war with everybody. Isn't that really more wars. And they don't define an end game. That is the reason the American people don't trust the democrats, they haven't defined an end game. Their theory seems to be, that the middle east is just fine now, and if we attack the Iraq, the middle east will just flare up again. Duh. Haven't they read about the bombs in Checknia, the derailed attacks on the Paris water supply, Bali, Kenya; the list just put up by the FBI yesterday. And they seem utterly incapable after years of telling us that the type of poverty and misery suffered by the people of Iraq are exactly the type of conditions which breed terrorists; that our support of brutal dictators like Saddam has caused this hatred for the US; that now all of a sudden, they can not see a connection between Iraq and the war on terror. Al posted awhile back that the reason for Obl and the fundamentalist teaching is a clash in civilizations. And he is exactly right. Saddam is a perfect example all of those differences, and to say we should leave Saddam in power is to say we can live with the clash in our civilizations,that we can live with just one 9/11 every yr. or every other yr, or we are powerless to do something about it. They can cower behind their silly logic, trying to scare all of the little kiddies with Pell Grant cutbacks, etc., but the simple truth is, they have not defined an endgame. GW's pre-emptive strike logic has an end game, that if you rid the world of the conditions, and places that spawn terrorism, that you will get rid of terrorism. Right or wrong, the theory has an end game The dems need to counter with a better plan that has an end game. Put up or shut up, us cheeseheads always say.

To: i-node who wrote (157193)	1/1/2003 2:30:24 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580197

Were it not for Powell, the chicken hawks in the administration -- warmongers who have not themselves experienced battle -- already would have us invading Iraq without giving U.N. inspectors a chance. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, these strident cheerleaders for so-called preemptive action are obviously disappointed that the Iraq inspections have turned up nothing more then the rusting remnants of a deadly weapons programs originated -- and used -- with the full knowledge of the U.S. government to punish fundamentalist Iran. It is, to me, frustrating to see liberals continue to assert (unassailed) that Bush (or for that matter, Cheney & Rumsfeld) are anxious to go to war. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck......why are you surprised that people see a duck? ted