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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (173638)	3/18/2003 7:33:33 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT - The new policy is to bring curtained societies into the mainstream of world intercourse.

To: Road Walker who wrote (173638)	3/18/2003 7:36:07 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 186894

John, senate.gov "Congress has already spoken on this matter, and we have spoken clearly. In 1998 we passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and President Clinton signed it, declaring our national policy to be a change of regime in Baghdad. Last October, after extensive debate, the Senate adopted by a vote of 77-23, which authorized the President to' …use the Armed Forces of the United States…to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.' Steve

To: Road Walker who wrote (173638)	3/19/2003 3:29:55 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Preemptive action is not a new policy. Why does everyone suddenly act like a "preemptive" use or threat of force is something brand new that we have never used before? What do you think John Kennedy did about the missile build up in Cuba? That was preemptive action for sure. Cuba hadn't fired any of these missiles and we forced Cuba to disarm their missiles under threat of us attacking them, and believe me, we were not bluffing. We came very close to starting a larger, global war with Russia at the time. Sure Cuba is physically closer, but high technology has given countries as far away as Iraq the potential to be just as much a threat, if not more, in 2003, than Cuba was in the 1960s. And I don't think anyone would argue the point that Saddam is a much more out of control, dangerous madman than Fidel Castro ever was or ever will be. Regards, Huey