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: Enam Luf who wrote (598381)	8/1/2004 5:15:29 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769670

- Agree on the consequences of outsourcing. Being from the tech industry, I saw the start of it in the nineties, with the outsourcing of software maintenance. The thought process was that qualified engineering was hard to find, so outsourcing of maintenance made sense. The idea was not to outsource the front end design and construction, but that idea seems to have been lost to cost cutting. If the wrong mix of jobs are cut, we'll lose our competitive advantage, and it will downhill from there. - I did not attempt any sort of risk model. More of a 'finger in the wind', but based on some historic numbers of debt ratios, and the fact that the historically low interest rates must rise. The trend is definitely not our friend at this time. We need to change that trend, which means first a change of management. - Reducing or increasing troop levels is not the issue. The issue is reducing violence. American troops, because of Bush's bumbling, have become a symbol to the Iraqi people - a symbol that some feel must be attacked. By even just swapping in international troops, we have potential for reducing the violence and getting the reconstruction back on track.

To: Enam Luf who wrote (598381)	8/1/2004 5:30:47 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Beyond the relative judgement on how imminent the threat Iraq posed when the 25 million people of Iraq were given freedom. Both longer term strategic and shorter term tactical dangers should be considered. 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing in October kills 241 US Marines. Can terrorist operate in Saudia Arabia? Were hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers concentrated in Saudia Arabia to force criminal saddam to allow the UN to again conduct inspections. Does anyone think criminal saddam was complying? And as to the reality of saddam having WMD's Can anyone point to the least hint that 100% of the military were acting with the idea they would face WMD if they invaded. Adding integrity to that assumption. Retired Gen. Tommy Franks Says * The biggest surprise for him was that they've found no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the "reason we went to war." He says multiple Middle Eastern leaders, including Jordan's King Abdullah and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, told Franks that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In January 2003, Mubarak said point blank to Franks, "Saddam has WMD-biologicals, actually-and he will use them on your troops." prnewswire.com Any person who would have continued the status quo based upon what was known at the time is a reckless idiot. And I believe David Kay's most recent assessment that saddam in charge was a far far more dangerous terrorist threat than anyone had imagined is 100% correct. Also considering the depravity of actions of terrorists and the acts committed since 25 million Iraqis were given freedom. I wonder how any person could suggest that thousands of soldiers could be left as sitting ducks non WMD acts of depravity while saddam played his games and everyone had been convinced by saddam he had hidden stockpiles of WMD. The longer term strategic benefit is that Iran is now bordered with societies on path that will likely lead to the collaspe of that evil terror embracing government.