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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Moufassa's Lair -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KevinThompson who wrote (12773)	4/16/2003 9:43:38 PM
From: Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13660

Good Evening Kevin: The upside to this, a President who follows through on what he says, countries like Syria, Iran and North Korea will see that is in their best interest to "behave." Regards, BobP

To: KevinThompson who wrote (12773)	4/16/2003 10:59:16 PM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13660

Colin Powell felt it was about disarmament, and about WMD especially. msnbc.com The word "ceasefire" doesn't appear. I think the majority of people polled would put WMD at the top of the list of reasons offered before the war. As to the war on terrorism, I think everyone on both sides of the political debate agrees this will be perhaps the most difficult war ever fought, in the same way the war on drugs has been so difficult, because there is no single enemy with obvious formations to battle, and because there are so many shades of grey. Pakistan is widely agreed to have been provided aid and support to terrorists, and is a very repressive regime, for example. But Pakistan is a needed ally right now. The IRA is a terrorist group. It's not a danger to America, course, but it is to Britain, a close and valued ally. Is America going after the IRA? Period, it's as simple as that Little in life is as simple as that. Regards, WUWT

To: KevinThompson who wrote (12773)	4/17/2003 10:44:41 AM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13660

During the 90's - we had a REAL PRESIDENT, that cared about the middle class, balanced the budget (after being handed record deficits from Bush I), and focused on the economy - and a little thing also like creating 20 million jobs. Yes the people did this - but his administration provided the environment where it could happen. 9-11 occurred on Bush II's watch. He ignored security threats, and would not form the Dept. of Homeland Security, even after bipartisan attempts to urge him to BEFORE 9-11. If Clinton had been President during 9-11, you would likely have called for his removal. I rest my case. You also had a lot of Republicans saying very unpatriotic things - and opposing their commander-in-chief at that time - even about war issues. Bob Dole had to stand up to support the war in Bosnia. He was the only Republican to have the guts to do this at the time. He got the ball rolling there. He was willing to take a stand against what many in his party would have done. I give him big credit for that. Don't be so eager to forget recent history.. You wrote: >> During the 90's, we had a president that really could care less about the middle east. He had other things of personal interest going on... The time finally came that we were obligated to take action. Sept. 11, 2001 reminded us that there is still unfinished business. Thank God we had a president that understands leadership principles.