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: stockman_scott who wrote (77348)	2/25/2003 2:45:40 AM
From: Steeny	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This is a good post. It really swayed me. My pro-war stance has been weakened. I still argue that Democratic Iraq is possible & that the Arab world needs to destabilize. Arab leaders use anti-Americanism & extreme militant Islam to to keep their people in check. This cycle must change. It is for this reason that I beleive we cannot just live & let live in the Arab world. Our friends, The Saudis already funded 9-11--How much worse can it get? A Democratic Iraq could push the Arab world toward freeer & less hateful states.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77348)	2/25/2003 4:14:45 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

While I appreciate your right to say what you think, I personally believe you are incorrect on every score. I haven't noticed a single comment from you on any of the real stories of Iraq...the people who have escaped and the terror they have endured. To say nothing of the ones Saddam has killed. And nothing as well on the UN 17 Resolutions that were passed, and Saddam agreed to himself, to disarm Iraq of ALL WMD. This situation we find ourselves in since 9-11 is greatly beyond politics. It is our very Country and our lives, and those of our families and our citizens. You talk about not enough money for Homeland Security. It wouldn't matter how much there was. It wouldn't be enough, would it? And don't forget who and what party held up the funding for Homeland Security, and when it was finally passed. November 2002, in case you didn't remember. Reading many more sources than those you post from would be a start ..... I am reminded of JFK's statement here: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." It seems particularly appropriate right now. We can agree to disagree, I believe is the common terminology here.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77348)	2/25/2003 4:41:18 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm having difficulty understanding how $38 Billion is less than 1/20th of $26 Billion. "Why are we willing to bribe Turkey for up to $26 Billion to get their support for this 'elective War' AND we still spend less than 1/20 of that amount on Homeland Security in our country right now...? Something is very wrong here...IMO, Bush has UNDERfunded effective Homeland Security efforts and failed to help out the states that have had to spend significantly on new security measures since 9/11."

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77348)	2/25/2003 12:10:19 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OT Scott, your thoughtful post succinctly states the problems with the current admin. We have a reckless and irresponsible Bush budget with deficits that are way too high Although Bush claims otherwise: There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist. Let's play pretend... newsday.com.