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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike M who wrote (75429)	2/19/2003 2:23:08 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hello Mike M; Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I'm sure you will receive some feedback from the other posters tomorrow. --fl

To: Mike M who wrote (75429)	2/19/2003 8:42:43 AM
From: Condor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If you find my words "hostile", JohnM, be especially glad you never served in my unit. Threatening and childlike in the same breath. You used the words " I " and "My" 19 times in that short raise the flag speech. C

To: Mike M who wrote (75429)	2/19/2003 9:51:11 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Hear, hear.

To: Mike M who wrote (75429)	2/19/2003 12:16:23 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Mike, You seem to think conversation consists of tossing threats, letting us know you are more moral than anyone else on your block. You need to be willing to argue you have a better policy, not that you think you are a better person and those who disagree with you are not quite moral actors. If you find my words "hostile", JohnM, be especially glad you never served in my unit. Personal threats should not be a part of conversations on this thread. I hope you either stop or take your vituperation to some other corner of the universe.

To: Mike M who wrote (75429)	2/19/2003 3:15:52 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Leaving aside the rest of your rant for the moment, this part struck me: Frankly there is not any point to the debate. Within one month, Saddam Hussein will be history. The only alternative to that would be his agreeing to exile, a move I consider less likely thanks to the spirited indecision of our "allies"(a term to be used loosely) and the "loyal" opposition of our fellow countrymen. I am truly sick of hearing the political agendas bantered about by every loose cannon with a germ of an idea. There has been nothing new under the sun proffered in a long time. The decisions have already been made and the clock is ticking. The United Nations will come along kicking and screaming or it won't. The time for debate is passed. Save it for the after action report. Um. Are you perchance recommending that we take the D out of FADG? That acronym would be unfortunate. As to political agendas, my impression is that the right tends to go far afield in defense of the political cause here a lot more often than the other side. Then there's the long running "Bush undecided" thing, Q But more broadly, is he confident that he has made the case to the American people -- not to France or Russia or China -- but to the American people, that this is something that he needs to do and that it's going to entail risks and casualties and potentially long-term costs? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the -- first of all, you have to keep in mind the President has not made the decision that force will be used. The President has, of course, in his State of the Union, talked directly to the American people about the nature of the threat and why it's important that one way or another Saddam Hussein be disarmed. whitehouse.gov The "no decision" thing comes up fairly often, this was the most recent I came up with in a quick look. Has a decision been announced? Is it a bad thing to discuss it meanwhile? What happened in your unit when people discussed stuff like that? Or did they just know better when you were in earshot?