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: Joe NYC who wrote (175659)	10/1/2003 11:00:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570843

I disagree. There was a sizeable minority....around 30% who were against the war.....another 15% who were wavering. Furthermore, there was a majority who wanted the support of the UN. Only in the end, when Bush said that Saddam had uranium for a nuclear devise did that majority disappear. There is always a sizeable minority against. There were people protesting our attack on Afghanistan, therewere people against US entry to both World Wars. No, there wasn't.....most people were in favor of going after Al Qaeda/Taliban because they were seen as the enemy. And my point still stands.......whenever you have a sizeable minority, you build consensus or suffer the consequences. Bush is suffering the consequences. However, with the absense of WMD, those people now feel tricked. A lot of people feel "tricked", including Bush, Blair, Blix, Schroeder, and even Saddam himself, according to latest reports. You're joking?! You're from NYC, the skeptics' capital of the country and you don't see throught their charade. Sorry, Joe, I'm not buying it. It takes real work to build consensus. Bush was not willing to do the work.....neither was Blair. Now, both are paying for that lack of effort. You can fault Bush, but you can't fault Blair for lack of trying to win support. Yes, I do because he let Bush cut him off. He wasn't strong enough to convince Bush to build consensus.....that's why they call Blair Bush's poodle....Blair knew better. The same goes for Powell. I no longer have any respect for either man.....Powell should have resigned before the war; instead he sold his soul to the man. Europe would have acted if the weapons inspectors had found WMD and if Saddam refused to destroy those weapons. Europeans believed that Saddam had WMD, and some (notably Schroeder) said he would sit out the Iraq war with or without WMD, with or without UN support. And he decided all this well before Bush went to the UN. You'll have to show me where he said that.......that's not my understanding. The core of Europe is hopelessly rotten. The only question is if it will spread to the periphery. That's your opinion. I suspect its based on the fact that the core of Europe is not conservative. Like many conservatives, you seem to think that conservatism has a clearer take on the facts and knows best how to lead the world. I disagree......I think the conservative ideology is too reactionary and may have been appropriate in another time. To grow and evolve, humanity must work to bring all peoples into a decent way of life. We must work together, not separately. Conservatism encourages me tooism, separatism and class consciousness; confrontation instead of consensus. The rising anti semitism, and I really think its anti Israel and not anti Judaism, is because of Israel's heavy handiness with Palestine. Anti-semitism in Europe (and beyond) is independent of the state of Israel. It was there before, during, and will be there after, when (or if) Israel no longer exists. I don't agree. I see very little anti semitism in Europe.....certainly no more than the US. I can't be the only one who recognizes that Israel is short of water and the West Bank has tons. From where? Jordan River? Doesn't Jordan River get to the West Bank after it goes through Israel? No. There is a huge natural aquifer under the West Bank. Per capita, the Palestinian need for water is half that of the Israelis. And it can't be explained to someone like me. I just don't buy the argument. Saddam's threat to Israel was in the past tense; its true that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers families but so does most of the ME; Well, I rest my case. If it can't be explained to you, how is Bush lazy for not trying. I am one person in the minority. You give up if I object?!! Well, then, I am more powerful than I thought. <g> and what's fueling the militant islamist is not Saddam but mostly the US and our interventions in the affairs of others. You are kidding right? This is about the point where rational argument ends, so I am going to stop right here. Kidding? Not for a NY minute. An example of a shortage of rational thinking is the conservative who believes that what we are doing in Iraq is creating a positive impression in the world of Islam. I am convinced conservatives don't have a clue how people think. Do not be surprised if in the next ten years a bomb is detonated in a major city of the US that ends up killing hundreds of thousands. Its only a matter of time IMO. ted