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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (174331)	8/22/2003 4:13:19 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1576297

I think many people appreciate Bush for just taking action. The alternative was just sweeping it under the rug like Clinton would have. Leaving it to fester and be a bigger problem later on.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (174331)	8/22/2003 5:17:19 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576297

Maybe you ought to accept that Bush went to war for all the right reasons and achieved victory over Saddam. . What were the "right" reasons? Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (174331)	8/22/2003 6:39:10 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576297

Ted, Clinton said that there were "unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." That means we knew they were there, but Iraq obviously didn't account for them. But then again, I knew you'd have a problem with the words "unaccounted for," which is why I prefaced the quote with "Guess it depends on your interpretation of ..." Once again......did Clinton start a war? Did Bush? That's the important question and the answer is the operative difference between the two men. It doesn't matter what Clinton thought or didn't think......he didn't go off starting a war. Just accept that Bush went to war on the flimsiest of reasons and move on. Maybe you ought to accept that Bush went to war for all the right reasons and achieved victory over Saddam. All the Saddam loyalists doing the nasty over there amount to nothing but sore, murderous losers. The fact that you and Al give them so much recognition shows me who really needs to move on. I don't think he went to war for the right reasons and I think that's maybe why the war is so controversial just as the Vietnam war was. Its clear he didn't go to war for the WMD or the links to al Qaeda. Personally, I think it was to fulfill the neocon thesis. With all the things that have gone wrong like the schism with our allies, it looks like it was not a wise decision. In the end, I don't think the benefits will justify the costs. In the meantime, we each have our reasons for supporting or opposing the war. What we have to recognize, however, is that up ahead there is point where the war will split this country in the same way this thread is split. How bad the split is will be determined by how evenly divided the two sides are. The more evenly divided, the more dangerous will be the schism. Because this is more than about a war in Iraq.......its about different ideologies and how those ideologies will shape the direction this country will take in the future. ted