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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (426474)	7/14/2003 2:31:44 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

Aside from ole Rummy and the neocons, I don't think there are many Americans who want another war at this point. War doesn't usually poll well. Though I don't know that this is war. Nor do I really appreciate why there are various comparisons between Liberia, Iraq, and/or Somalia. All these situations have more differences than they do have in common. The two things they have in common is that they require Ameirican soldiers and American money. That's enough commonality for me. The biggest difference in Liberia is Pres. Taylor has invited a peace keeping force and has agreed to step down. No one is going after Liberia for WMD. Yes, and he refuses to step down until American troops are in Liberia. Why? I am tired of tyrants playing games. Saddam did invite the CIA in to show him where the WMD was, but we declined that invitation...presumably we knew that with all the bulletproof evidence we had, Saddam was too smart for us. Saddam was smarter than the combined efforts of the global intelligence community... Hindsight is 20/20 but it looks like Saddam was simply telling the truth. He had no WMD. Aside from ole Rummy and the neocons, I don't think there are many Americans who want another war at this point. I'm surprised at that statement and I asked someone else on it as well......I do see an occasional reference by one person or another supporting intervention or not, but I don't sense that either side has set on a particular position. It's more like the Rep are waiting for Bush to decide, so they can agree and the Dems are waiting for Bush to decide, so they can disagree. There are exceptions, e.g., Dean or Jackson, but I don't see a set position from either side. Perhaps it's my distance and I have not seen enough print on it. Other than CNN, I don't see the other US major broadcast networks. It was a poll question.......the majority responded that they were opposed to more military interventions.