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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (60437)	1/9/2004 3:44:10 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Thanks for your comments! Much appreciated. My two cents worth. I go way back on record saying that Bush was the lesser of two evils. Gore's positions on issues changed with the weather. Because of that and the strong bench Bush had, I voted for him. My opinion of the admin. I believe that Bush is the president, but not the chairman of the board. I'm not going on record saying that he is a puppet of that bench, but I sense that his decisions are made based upon the recommendations of those above him and perhaps out of the realm of politics. Now, how's that for going out on a limb?

To: abstract who wrote (60437)	1/9/2004 4:22:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

"than going it (almost) alone" Ahem..... That is one of the regular arguments that is brought up by partisan ideologs, in their endless, pointless circular debate of irrefutably discredited ideas. It simply has no basis in fact. France, Germany, Russia, China & others had billions of reasons to avoid war with Iraq. Illegal contracts & massive illegal arms sales, etc are among their main reasons. They also had lent Saddam tens of billions that would be in jeopardy if Saddam were removed from power. To give these countries credibility as honest opposition to the war is ludicrous at best. Those countries put their own self-interest above global security & they ignored the horrific crimes against humanity of Saddam to line their pockets with illicit profits. Those are the real facts. The Coalition of the Willing is more than 60 countries strong. To dismiss them as you have, by deceitfully saying, "finding the massive international peer pressure more palatable than going it (almost) alone", is grossly deceptive & ignores numerous irrefutable facts to the contrary. "I have mixed feelings about the Bush administration which I think frequently ignores common sense and acts in its own selfish interest." Well, it's obvious you wish to argue in circles like other partisan ideologs. You brought this up in our recent discussion here. I completely discredited it with a mountain of evidence that is clearly contrary to that belief. And here you are again with the same line & ZERO evidence. How about a few specific & factually accurate instances to support these allegations? You are great at sound bites & now it clearly appears your are impervious to facts & reality that runs contrary to your partisan POV.

To: abstract who wrote (60437)	1/9/2004 4:33:59 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

Interisting & pertinent POV IMO........ From: unclewest .....You are presenting the same old argument and still fail to account for several things: 1. In America, it is not necessary to convince you personally. 51% of the people is enough. 2. You have forgotten the UN's failed role in containing Iraq. 3. You have forgotten the US Congress' authorization to use force to remove saddam if Iraq continued to refuse to cooperate with UN sanctions. That was an expectation...as near an order as congress can issue. Painting everything with a broad brush called terrorism assumes every terrorist movement and leader have the same goal. That is not even close and our leaders know that. Terror organizations are very very complex and numerous. Here is a list of all the terror groups on the current state dept roster: Abu Nidal Organization Abu Sayyaf Group Armed Islamic Group Aum Shinrikyo Basque Fatherland and Liberty Gama'a al-Islamiyya HAMAS Harakat ul-Mujahideen Hizballah al-Jihad Kahane Chai Kurdistan Worker's Party Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization National Liberation Army Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- Shaqaqi Faction Palestinian Liberation Front -- Abu Abbas Faction Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command al-Qa'ida Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia Revolutionary Nuclei Revolutionary Organization 17 November Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front Shining Path Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade 'Asbat al-Ansar Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Jaish-e-Mohammed Jemaah Islamiya Lashkar-e-Tayyiba Lashkar I Jhangvi Real IRA Salafist Group for Call and Combat United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia Anyone looking at this list will agree with your assertion that Islamism needs to be addressed as part of the problem. I believe it is being addressed, albeit not in open forums. You must see the difficulty our leaders have in stating that publicly, afterall freedom of religion is a guarantee in America. <font size=4> There are 36 terror organizations on that list. Taking down Iraq hurt many of them badly, very badly. You are not convinced of which is the appropriate approach to resolution. I strongly recommend you read about each of these 36 orgs. Knowing your enemy is essential to comprehending and evaluating proposed solutions. We all need to understand how complex this problem is, because the war on terror has only just begun. We very well may need 36 different solutions. This war is going to become more complicated not less. And most disturbing to me is there is no clear winner in sight. uw <font size=3> Message 19671192

To: abstract who wrote (60437)	1/9/2004 4:39:22 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Clinton believed Iraq had WMD Fri 9 Jan 2004 AFP - Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said. "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias. Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalisation..... news.ninemsn.com.au