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: Alighieri who wrote (163056)	3/6/2003 12:33:37 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572953

Bush got to negotiate the terms of the cease fire with the Iraqis in 1991. Not the issue; the ceasefire agreement has absolutely zero to do with what the UN mandate was. The issue is "what was the UN mandate?". The answer to the question is "to eject Saddam from Kuwait". There was no American policy for regime change until after Saddam showed noncompliance with the terms of ceasefire. Do I think we can maintain a military presence indefinitely? Don't you understand this would actually escalate the level of terrorism against the United States. This is pretty obvious.

To: Alighieri who wrote (163056)	3/6/2003 12:36:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572953

Al, <Bush got to negotiate the terms of the cease fire with the Iraqis in 1991.> Bush Sr. laid down clear goals and stuck to them. Those goals included the liberation of Kuwait and did not include the ousting of Saddam. The latter would have meant America would have to stick around much longer than Bush Sr. intended. You say America got out of Iraq too soon back in 1991. Now you're thinking that America cannot get out of Iraq soon enough. Clearly you have two conflicting views, a common fault among all of the anti-war protesters you see these days. Tenchusatsu