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 (166249)	3/30/2003 11:52:42 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583391

I understand that 9/11 changed things somewhat...but a switch so radical is a sure sign of absence of political fundamentals or blatant campaign lying or manipulation. So, your position is that 9/11 didn't mandate that we make radical, fundamental changes? I think it is fair to conclude that most Americans have been pleased with Bush's management of the events on 9/11 and since, up to and including the current action against Iraq. Not just MOST, but the vast majority. Who DOESN'T approve? Basically, the 25% Yellow Dog Democrats. Is it surprising that the people of other nations would prefer that we take their abuse? Absolutely not. Just as we instrinsically want to be the most powerful nation in the world, the less powerful nations want to see our power eroded. There should be no surprise these people are anti-American. What matters is where things stand after the war -- at the end of Bush's second term, for example. At that time, and not before, will we be able to determine the success or failure of Bush's actions.

To: Alighieri who wrote (166249)	3/30/2003 12:04:46 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583391

I understand that 9/11 changed things somewhat...but a switch so radical is a sure sign of absence of political fundamentals or blatant campaign lying or manipulation. In any case, the people who stand behind the swagger of this presidency were hired long before 9/11. Al, I think it was mostly campaign lying........telling the people what he/K.Rove thought they wanted to hear. It seems many of things he said during the campaign is pretty much the opposite of what he's really thinking. However, he can't be faulted completely. The American people are getting what they paid for. And in the name of patriotism and nationalism, they are overlooking his flaws and his mistakes. I am afraid at some point there will be a rude wake up call. ted

To: Alighieri who wrote (166249)	3/30/2003 2:21:47 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583391

Al Re..."If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us," he said in the second presidential debate against Al Gore in 2000. "If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us." The US generally has conducted a humble but strong military campaign against Iraq. I think there is no doubt our casualties would be lower, but Iraq civilian casualties far higher if the US waged all out war. Just because a some people use the word arrogant, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That was a promise to check hubris at the door, an effort to guard against the temptation to believe that because he had such awesome power at his fingertips, he could and should use it to achieve grandiose objectives. And many nations mistook that to mean weak. France thought that statement meant we would back down, at the mearest mention of the word arrogant. France was just as arrogant, if one wishes to use that word, treating other members of the EU. And now France is begging to be included in the reconstruction. In any case, the people who stand behind the swagger of this presidency were hired long before 9/11. You will note that Gw and his advisors, didn't start to assert US power until after 9/11, when it became obvious that the challenge must be met. Would you prefer a president who is too afraid to use military power to defend us, a military with no swagger. I think not. Look at the type of war Saddam is waging, using civilians as shields. Is that what you are talking about, when you talk humble. I am sorry to disagree, but I will take our style and swagger over Saddams anyday.