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: i-node who wrote (174465)	8/25/2003 10:29:28 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578020

Where might Europe be today had the United States been committing resources to making life easy for those who don't want to work "quite so hard", rather than building a massive military machine? Ultimately, this is what we're talking about. The United States has made huge sacrifices for the benefit of the rest of the world, and it seems apparent that you are totally blind to this fact. > The sacrifices of the past are understood and appreciated, but do not negate the need to change nor do they obligate the benefaciaries of these sacrifices to follow the benefactor to hell. The world is changing, evolving. The current conservative base fails to recognize and adjust to this change. It is not unlike all other change. It will happen despite the resistance of those who want to hang on to a familiar way. The arrogance of liberals knows no bounds. Most conservatives believe in altruism just as strongly as you do, probably moreso. We just don't believe that you help people out by confiscating the money of one class of person and giving it to another. This serves only to make the weak more reliant on the not-so-weak. Having health care for every citizen is not confiscating the money of one class of person and giving it to another. Having the privileged and rich pay a higher share of the common good of others less fortunate is not making them addicts. What you write is simpleminded and mean spirited. As if every one who depends on state supplied assistance is lazy and a bum. It makes no allowances for the truly needy. You over-simplify these issues to the point where they are unrecognizable. Funny...that's exactly the way I feel about what your views. Al

To: i-node who wrote (174465)	8/25/2003 1:46:48 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578020

<font color=green>It's time to fire Rumsfeld!! <font color=black> ___________________________________________ SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Sunday, August 24, 2003 The United States has more serious problems in Iraq than President Bush could have imagined when he declared major combat at an end. Before he faces more surprises, the nation's first MBA president should take management action. Relieve Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. The president needs a Defense Department in which professional views about what military force levels hold sway, change can occur without perpetual turmoil and military planning avoids undermining diplomacy. None of that is likely under the domineering Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is brilliant, dedicated and hard-working. It's said he gets results and has won two wars, right? It certainly didn't look that way last week when Americans watched scenes from the bombed U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Continuing U.S. casualties, sabotage and insecurity plague Iraq. In Afghanistan, we now have more troops than ever and the Taliban have been on the offensive, leading to 90 deaths in a seven-day period. So much for driving them into caves. Afghanistan needs additional resources to become a stable nation. <font color=red>Every day, Iraq's troubles make it more certain that Rumsfeld was wrong in his assessment of troop needs. His rapid action plan brought quick victories. But just as Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, security requires several hundred thousand military.<font color=black> News accounts raise questions about whether Rumsfeld is simply a demanding boss or one who may inadvertently limit what he hears from aides. When pressed on troop-level questions months ago, Rumsfeld repeatedly ducked behind the planning of his generals. He now says that his generals haven't requested additional troops. Such talk has enough suggestion of buck-passing to be a management concern. If Rumsfeld brings some genius to hiring decisions, it hasn't been apparent. He's surrounded himself with neo-conservatives bent on war, including Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the Sept. 11 massacres, and such Defense Policy Board members as Richard Perle and Newt Gingrich. Somehow, Iran-Contra figure John Poindexter was picked to head the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, where he suggested creating a massive personal data program and a terrorism futures trading market. Rumsfeld also has proven to be an impediment to diplomacy. Numerous accounts show how Secretary of State Colin Powell has been undercut within the administration. During the Iraqi war preparations, Rumsfeld insulted allies with such phrases as "the old Europe." In Germany, he followed up with public praise for Romania and Albania's help in Afghanistan, but none for Germany's leading role. Powell needs to be in charge of diplomacy, untroubled by an out-of-control defense secretary. Rumsfeld is the bright, abrasive boss whose usefulness expires quickly. If the president has any thought of a more international approach to security threats, he must remove Rumsfeld from his leadership team. seattlepi.nwsource.com