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 (157337)	1/3/2003 12:22:02 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580476

For what? This is a country that can easily be contained. Yes, it can be easily contained while a George Bush is president. But history shows us that when we elect a Bill Clinton, containment goes out the window. Containment works great in Iraq so long as a competent leader is in the White House (remember, in '98, Clinton stood idly by while Iraq thumbed its nose at weapons inspections that were agreed to while Bush 41 was president). Containment failed miserably in NK while Clinton was in office. And now, we are faced with a much bigger problem as a result. If we could count on not having a weak liberal president elected at some future date, I would be totally supportive of a policy of containment for Iraq. As to NK, I think Clinton's inept handling of the situation has brought us to the brink of nuclear war. In short, containment only works if you have leadership that understands what is at stake. This administration does; but four years from now we could have a John Kerry or Gephardt or Daschle running the country. We cannot afford to risk the future on the Republicans being able to defeat the Democrat Lying Political Machine which put Clinton in office.

To: Alighieri who wrote (157337)	1/3/2003 1:50:11 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580476

You should know the details or else war is little more than a video game to those of you who favor it. People like you keep saying "we"...but the truth is that the vast majority of us will never lift a finger and will never know the horrors of the war on people, our own and theirs. As Ted likes to say "who made you king". You're the only person qualified to have an opinion on war? So which is it...you have war experience and have determined that you don't want to go back at any cost, or you have as little qualification as anybody else with an opinion and therefore must oppose a war at any cost (due to your reasoning that you aren't qualified to have an opinion)? Nobody wants a war, but you have to back up things sometimes WITH FORCE. If we weren't mobilizing for war, would our threat really carry that much water? Brian