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: Rob S. who wrote (160931)	2/13/2003 7:55:39 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573848

On the contrary, it will tie up thousands of troops in "nation building" that Bush said he was opposed to when he ran for office. Well, it is okay to criticize Bush, and I have sometimes criticized him myself. But there is not another person I can think of that I feel would have been as strong a leader since 9/11. His cabinet literally oozes competence--particularly Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney. You just could not have picked a better group of people to be running the country at this time. If you disagree, it would be interesting to know who your picks would have been ...

To: Rob S. who wrote (160931)	2/13/2003 8:10:25 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573848

Rob, <On the contrary, it will tie up thousands of troops in "nation building" that Bush said he was opposed to when he ran for office.> A lot has changed since Bush ran for office. Nation-building is no longer an overly expensive luxury, but a necessity whenever we pursue a policy of regime change. I guess the question remains: What would be the cost of leaving Saddam alone, or even containing him? If that outweighs the cost of "nation-building," then I'd argue for the latter. Tenchusatsu