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 (164356)	3/16/2003 8:55:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572630

I didn't say we moved 200k men to the Gulf just to get Iraq to comply. I said " "To the extent they are doing the job at all it is because of the threat to Iraq from the armed might of the US. It it wasn't for Bush's actions and policies there would be no inspectors in Iraq." You then said "You're welcome to spin that way certainly A. Fleischer has been doing it for weeks now." In other words your saying my statement that the inspectors are there only because of the threat to Iraq from the armed forces of the US, is spin. But it isn't. You might have other spin to respond to but my statement was simple fact. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (164356)	3/16/2003 9:12:39 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1572630

So what? Do you really think we had to move 200k men to the Gulf to get Saddam to comply? If you negotiate from a position of strength, you win the negotiation (e.g., Bush 41 & Gulf War, Reagan & the Cold War, JFK & the Cuban Missle Crisis). If you negotiate from a position of weakness, you lose (e.g., Carter & Iran, Clinton & Saddam, LBJ & Ho Chi Minh, Clinton/Carter & NK). The list of liberal Democrat failures is replete with weak negotiations.

To: tejek who wrote (164356)	3/17/2003 1:45:02 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572630

Ted, Demanding that Saddam comply with the weapons inspectors was a sham....a way to hide his true intentions. That was intended for the UN consumption, not for the US consumption, since everyone in the US knows we are there to take Saddam out. Joe

To: tejek who wrote (164356)	3/17/2003 1:54:41 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572630

tejek, re:Do you really think we had to move 200k men to the Gulf to get Saddam to comply? Looks like we may have needed more, since that didn't get him to comply. re:I am truly tired of GOP spin! There's no spin, it's a fact we asked him to disarm, we backed it up with a credible threat and he refused. We went through the UN, got a resolution (unanimous I might add, including congressional support). You are the one blinded by political bias, Bush may want war in his heart of hearts but Saddam had numerous opportunities to defeat Bush's War as you see it.