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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5080)	3/4/2003 2:29:23 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

"In a sense he did offer an alternative. That of having no international treaty to deal with the potential problem of global warming. That seems a better alternative to me then Kyoto." Standing on your head or hiring a prostitute are alternatives too. What is the value of your suggested alternative of doing nothing...or do you have an implied solution which you will share??

To: TimF who wrote (5080)	3/4/2003 3:47:09 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 7720

The tax cut, pulling out of the ABM treaty, not supporting Kytoto... are examples of boldness in support of Bush's agenda. It would seem so to me, as well. They are all on target re Bush's overall agenda. But that was not Friedman's point. What he was saying is that they did not contribute to, actually detracted from, Bush's IRAQ agenda. I think he is correct in that. Of course, when Bush dismissed Kyoto, for example, he had no way of knowing how that might play out in a war with Iraq, which was not on the drawing boards at the time. He did not know that it might ever matter to him what the rest of the world thought or that the world might stand in the way of his achieving his goals. Actually, there's no indication that he gives a damn what the rest of the world thinks, now, or that he will let the rest of the world stand in his way, so perhaps it's all moot, at least in the short term. As for the long term, there's no indication that he has given much consideration to that, either. I've been reading Friedman's columns and books since 9-11. He certainly know a lot about the subject. I have developed a lot of respect for him.

To: TimF who wrote (5080)	3/4/2003 3:56:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I don't have a clue where he got the 95 percent. That seems way high to me. I've been following and participating in polls and I would think the number he wanted was more like two thirds. From today's Post: <<Surveys conducted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have consistently shown that a majority of Americans favor military strikes against Iraq. But this general agreement that force should be used is neither absolute, unconditional nor uniformly shared by key voting groups, an analysis of recent Washington Post-ABC News surveys suggests. This ambivalence, most recently reflected in a Post-ABC News poll completed Sunday, raises questions about the depth and durability of public support for using force to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The poll found that 59 percent of respondents favor using military force against Iraq, even without the support of the U.N. Security Council. But four in 10 supporters also said they had reservations about the looming conflict with Iraq. When these doubters are combined with opponents of military action, the result suggests that more than six in 10 Americans harbor at least some doubts about using force while only a third are unequivocally behind going to war.>> washingtonpost.com