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: i-node who wrote (162681)	3/2/2003 9:40:51 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576184

I do not fear Saddam Hussein. He's not a real threat to us just a contained creep who ought to be gradually disarmed or just assasinated covertly. Not worth 200 billion bucks and thousands of lives to invade, especially when it will cause more terrorists to rise up and make us look like neo-colonialists by occupying an Arab state. And despite what you say about 30 nations helping us, most of them are tiny countries who don't help us much. And the UK needs UN approvals. Blair is tottering with 70% against his policies domestically. That said, if the war happens, I pray it goes smoothly and we use the oil to pay for the war. But we certainly have no guarantees. Things could get very nasty and take a long time to quell. Many-many American lives couild be lost and if they are, Bush deserves the blame for insisting on war now instead of doing more about coalition-building and peace-making, especially in Israel. Bush started this so now he must find the best way to finish it. It is even possible Bush will back off. A lot depends on Turkey, and of course Saddam. Bushies talk tough but they cannot be unaware of the very real dangers and outrageous costs. Is it worth it? That will take many years to decide. Only in retrospect will we know if Bush is nuts or a genius. Too bad there is even a question. Wars should be clar in intent, not this murky. I'm also surprised that the US media keeps backing this war almost without dissent. It really is as if Saddam had attacked us, and he hasn't. Hasn't done much at all except take pot-shots at our planes.

To: i-node who wrote (162681)	3/2/2003 10:04:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576184

Coalitions are conveniences. WE'RE doing the heavy lifting. We don't NEED anybody. The closest thing to NEEDING anyone was Turkey, and we're going to stomp Saddam Hussain without touching Turkey. That said, we have a coalition of 30 nations, probably twice that on the day the war starts. But you're pretty ignorant if you think the "coalition" has anything to do with the number troops we have in the region; We'll have 200K; the British will have 40K; nobody else will have over a couple thousand regardless of size of the coalition. The war hasn't even started and we've had two or three major disasters. What makes you think the actual war will go smoothly? ted

To: i-node who wrote (162681)	3/3/2003 12:55:32 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576184

Kerry would have prosecuted this war smartly and would have the world behind him. Therein lies the difference. Kerry is for disarmament and not afraid of using force. He understands force. He once WAS the force. Bush has never risked a scraped knee in his life but is obsessed with war. Even though he and his team are all draft-dodgers. Bush was evn a deserter. Something is wrong there. The Commander In Chief is not the man we deserve in that position. We deserve better. Smarter. Safer.