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: Selectric II who wrote (483780)	10/30/2003 11:16:29 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The minds that are products of mr. bill and his methods ignore truth, honesty and the law unless it is useful to their personal ambitions.

To: Selectric II who wrote (483780)	10/30/2003 12:07:40 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"you would have had Bush I continue the war in violation of the UN resolution," >>> At that point in time, the commanders on the ground were not calling for cease fire... it came as a Powell proposal. One to two more days would have likely ended Saddam. >>> The UN would have had nothing to say that could have changed the reality on the ground. >>> Yes, it was a HUGE strategic mistake to stop short... and it was a dastardly action to then call on the opposition groups to rise up in open rebellion - promise them support - and then stand aside and watch while they were slaughtered. >>> No wonder so few trusted us this last go-around. "and engage in street combat then,' >>> A possibility... but only one of many... the state of collapse in their armed forces was of such an extent, and Saddam was hanging on by only the skin of his teeth, that it is more likely his end would have been brought about swiftly by subordinants (exactly what we were soon calling - but impotently - for), and he would not have planned his 'disappearing act' in Tikrit... that he apparently had well worked out for this latest war. "but you object to Bush II enforcing dozens of UN resolutions?" >>> Don't believe I've ever said that... but still, there are several hundred other UN resolutions that various nations are in material breach of (Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, Burma, etc., etc.), and no one is making such a fuss about that. >>> It rather reduces the moral authority of UN resolutions (such as it is) if you just pick-and-choose which ones to care about - conducting a 'smorgisborg-like' foreign policy - while IGNORING all the ones you DON'T want to 'enforce'. >>> Since when did Republicans care about 'UN resolutions', anyway? Give me a break!