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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (119002)	11/8/2003 10:43:22 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

And what you're proposing is that we parse the meaning of words which are not "imminent" to decide how closely they approximate "imminent". Umm, I'm not completely comfortable with this yet... :o/ --fl@lrparser.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (119002)	11/8/2003 11:05:10 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "I guess the first thing we're agreed on is that you can't produce any sound bites or quotes of Bush talking about an imminent threat from Iraq." Bush has great difficulty with complicated words like "imminent". -- Carl

To: Ilaine who wrote (119002)	11/9/2003 12:52:49 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<you can't produce any sound bites or quotes of Bush talking about an imminent threat from Iraq....I was right...> So.....if they didn't use the word "imminent", the exact word (using two each of i, m, and n), they are off the hook. Likewise, you believe the Argentine Generals are off the hook, because I can't produce a quote where any of them used the word "Disappeared", to refer to their own activities. And the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Cold Warriors who funded and armed them, they are all off the hook, too, because I can't find a web site where they use the word "terrorist" to refer to themselves. Never mind the reality, what actually happened, the actual deeds, the real meanings. And Pol Pot, he never did nothing wrong to nobody, you won't believe any of it, unless I produce a quote from him, with the word "genocide". Oh. Except Pol Pot is the Other Side, the Black Hats, so at this point you radically lower the threshold for proving misdeeds. At this point, your endless forgiveness and credulity abruptly stops. The rules are different, for Bad Guys. If I told you I had 2 + 2 apples, or 12/3 apples, or the square root of 16 apples, would you insist I never said I had 4 apples, because I never used the word "4"? I guess it would depend entirely on whether I wore a Black or White Hat.

To: Ilaine who wrote (119002)	11/9/2003 4:36:09 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually Bush did use the term "imminent". Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. That's from Bush's last State of the Union address. Unfortunately for Bush's accusers, he didn't call Iraq an imminent threat. He said we shouldn't wait for a threat to become imminent to deal with it.