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: michael97123 who wrote (76544)	2/22/2003 11:23:03 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

after the Pollack epiphany i had, i would be more inclined to say that Bush may have mis-marketed the war to the american public with neocon justifications, thus fueling a growing anti-war movement just at the wrong time I heard Pollack on Charlie Rose last night. After describing what a threat Saddam is, how disasterous Saddam's judgement is, how containment might have worked if we had had allied support (which we didn't), but now there was no choice but war, he added that he didn't see the need for war immediately, one or two years out might do, except that now that the US had so many troops in the Gulf, it was essentially committed. I thought that was a very irresponsible thing to say at this juncture. Even Rose, nobody's hawk, said in response, "But we don't really know the state of Saddam's nuclear programs. If he gets a nuke in six months, then we're sunk." (I could add, or if Saddam manages to buy one from Pakistan or North Korea). I could hear the response of every Bush staffer in my head, "Thanks for ignoring every political reality, buddy. In two years we might not even be in office. We certainly won't be if Al Qaeda or Saddam manages to set off a dirty bomb in New York, while we sit here playing politics nicely-nicely with the Europeans. Somebody who worked for an adminstration that was so concerned with political appearances that it proved totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq should not 'miss a good opportunity to keep quiet', as M. Chirac put it"

To: michael97123 who wrote (76544)	2/22/2003 12:02:07 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi michael; Out by itself my "which guy are you scott" might appear to be confrontational. If i had phrased it "have you changed your views scott--please elucidate.", would that be OK? Sure, fine by me. It was a little hard for me to tell where you were actually coming from so I just thought I'd reinforce the idea (to everyone) that "demands" for answers, calling on the carpet as it were, are not really much fun. But heck, I guess this is slicing the balony pretty thin... :o) Thanks for the nice response. Appreciate it. --fl

To: michael97123 who wrote (76544)	2/22/2003 12:18:33 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Sometimes I don't understand your posts. I precisely understood your last post. You spent time on it and it shows. I'll pay more attention to what you are saying from now on. I have the utmost respect for people who manage diverse ideas and update their opinions. Good Luck Rascal@ ivotedforNixononce!.com