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 (160311)	2/7/2003 1:18:14 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1579027

Al Re... "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with." (The White House has apparently launched a post-emptive strike on General Schwarzkopf, for he now refuses interviews.) That is absolutely not true, as I saw Schwarzkopf on I believe MSNBC about an hur after Powells speech, and he agreed that Powell made a convincing case, and that is was time. That is how he said it, " it was time" In an October speech to the Middle East Institute in Washington, he added: "[If] we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Second of all, I think that war and violence are a very last resort." Once again, you are quoting from 6 months old sources. Zinni said that before resolution 1441, and Powells speech. Are you sure that he, like Schwartzkopf, hasn't changed his mind since. But President Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it — and this worked. LOL I assume then, this author agrees with Reagons form of containment, bombing the hell out of Bagdhad, just as Reagon bombed Tripoli. Would you agree then that we should increase our inspectors to 220,000 men driving M 1 tanks, which should do a lot to contain Saddam. But President Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it — and this worked. Does anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert? Thats a damned if you do and damned if you don't type of question . First off, Gadaffi realized shortly after we bombed tripoli that his life wasn't worth diddly squat, as he had no bunkers like Saddam to hide in. We have bombed Bagdhad already, however, Saddam refuses to fold, so the same type of diplomacy was tried on Saddam as Qadhafi, Qadhafi folded somewhat, Saddam didn't. To say Qadhafi was contained though, is missing the mark. Qadhafi did get rid of Nidal and other terrorist, but he kept his training camps, and a lot of terrorism in Africa has come out of those camps. So the Us hasn't completely contained Libyia, it only stoped the attacks against americans; however, Qadhafi has shifted his focus to Africa. We could do more for our national security by spending the money on education, or by financing a major campaign to promote hybrid cars and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and taking other steps toward energy independence. Garbage. Unless and until terrorism is either defeated, or reduce to insignificance, our economy will never experience the growth it should, and without growth, we won't be able to afford anything.