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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (522)	3/30/2003 6:32:41 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 7830

Gosh I'm in 100% agreement with you :-) what a surprise!

To: Lane3 who wrote (522)	3/30/2003 8:14:11 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7830

X is in 100% agreement with you. You need to re-examine your position from the ground up. She is the most reliable contrary indicator on the site. I'm not at all sure what this means. It means 3/4 of Americans back him in this matter. If that does not change before the war ends- -and it may not- -Bush will not even consider stopping short of complete victory. Although my suspicion is that he will not anyway. Weasel Willie has left the WH. The new guy is not going to bend. And Blair seems to be made of some amazingly stern stuff. What all this means is that all the screaming, bitching, moaning, and whining by the peaceniks is in vain. They ain't gonna stop the war. Know what this reminds me of? Reagan and the air traffic controllers. They threatened to strike. Reagan told them quite clearly that they would be fired and replaced if they did. They struck. They were fired and replaced. I think the war is right up there with the stupidest things this country has ever done. When did your fondness for butcherous dictators first start? I don't remember it previously. OTOH, I don't see where we have any choice now but to go forward, Nor do I. And I think the protestors in this country really should give thought to the idea that Saddam watches CNN too and they are effectively giving aid and comfort to the enemy. His only hope is that the internal ruckus in the US will force an end and leave him in power. And is anyone disagrees with that analysis, they are certainly free to tell me why it's wrong. I support our troops, and I desperately want us to win. And I. And, if the US does the right thing at the end of this war, so should the Iraqi people. If he reaches the point where his situation is utterly hopeless, I don't know that it would be stupid. He may find it appealing to go down with a bang rather than a wimper. Ah, but that also illustrates clearly that the US was right all along about his possession of chemical weapons, which he has repeatedly denied, and whose invisibility figured prominently (supposedly) in numerous UN matters. At THAT point, we get to bake crow for France and the UN. Are you taking exception to the UN running the clean-up or are you objecting to framing it as a "new multilateralism?" The UN is busted. This mess proves it. The US should withdraw. It is a fatally flawed structure and cannot be fixed. After the UN is extinct, maybe a workable international organization can be built. If it's the former, I don't think there's any choice but to suck it in and do it under UN auspices. The alternative, occupying Iraq ourselves, is to validate the world suspicions that we are imperialists, which is every bit as stupid as Saddam confirming that he has WMD. SUppose the US were occupy Iraq for 6 months or a year, write a constitution for it, install a gov't, stabilize it, then withdraw US forces, but continue to provide aid. Is that still stupid?