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: tejek who wrote (162548)	3/1/2003 2:15:52 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578177

>Mr. Bush has set this country back by at least 50 years. I am saddened contemplating our future prospects. You exaggerate mightily, but I agree that the situation is a bit dim, at least for now. -Z

To: tejek who wrote (162548)	3/1/2003 2:16:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578177

The war has grown less justifiable with each passing day. Assuming no political motivation for your statements, one can only conclude that a difference in opinion on this matter stems from a single source: Differing views on the level of threat Iraq poses to the United States. Presumably, there would be some level of threat beyond which you wouldn't be willing to tolerate it. If I recall, Al has stated that he would never be in favor of attacking Iraq unless they had previously attacked us (this doesn't square with his position in regards to Kosovo, but I think the reasoning is clear on that). So, what exactly is required before YOU find this war to be appropriate? Would you require an attack on our soil? What about the government holding 100 Americans hostage as did the Iranians? Or, would you NEVER find it appropriate? I'm assuming your answer isn't "we would have to have a liberal president at the time". So, what exactly are your criteria?