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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (17521)	3/8/2003 3:08:12 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

I'm not sure Bush feels as if he's doing the right thing. I think, more than not, he's doing what he's being advised to do, the theory being if you win a war that actually does create a new democracy in a difficult region, that you can survive reelection over a bad economy. The war move is a crapshoot, in my view. However, to the White House insiders, the turn at this dice is worth the risk because not only will it secure world domination over the supply of oil for a long time to come--and we all know this is an oil-drenched administration; but it'll also change the tempo of how Israel gets viewed. These, I think, are the odds they've added up. My problem is this is an endeavor still based on fear, speculation and preemption. That it is an unjust action that shows a potentially very dangerous return for people; however, with the oil card, someone at the top will win anyway--and that's usually the way it goes.

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (17521)	3/8/2003 3:59:40 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Clinton did the right thing over throwing governments in Haiti and Yugoslavia (going around the UN). Clinton did the right thing bombing Iraq and Afganistan OBL camps. Now Bush is doing the right thing. You sound partisen, and hypocritical. I'm talking about who did what is best for the ECONOMY. What are you talking about? Not the economy, obviously. In my view, economies win wars. Obviously this administration doesn't think so, but that doesn't mean they are correct. (I actually think Bush didn't correctly gauge world sentiment, and like a bad negotiator left himself no way out, and is in some sort of denial phase wrt the economy). If Clinton was in a position to decide whether to START a war in the middle of a weak economic recovery, and he decided to go for it, then I would bash him too. The fact is, there are some people who support war no matter what the overriding effects are. I am not one of those people.