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: Elroy who wrote (205192)	10/5/2004 12:56:43 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573825

I'ev said over and over I think the war was justified, and I supported it. My objections to Bush in regard to Iraq is I think his administration has done a miserable job in the "post major combat operations" phase. The war didn't go well, so you're going to kick him out in favor of a man who has not been willing to take a consistent position on it? That makes no sense whatsoever. I could see it if it were John McCain against Bush. Or even Howard Dean. But if you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a man about whom you know NOTHING. Bush's failure has been a communication failure, NOT a failure to execute. Wars get ugly. This one really hasn't, yet. We have to think back on the prewar days. What has happened is just what everyone KNEW would happen -- it is going to require getting into a meatgrinder with soldiers and gutting it out. There should be no surprise here. It would have been great for it to have gone more smoothly. But it didn't. We don't bail out now, though. Kerry has already said he would set a timetable for withdrawal. Horrible mistake. You can't fight a shooting war that way and expect your enemy to surrender. They know how long they have to hang on. It's nuts.

To: Elroy who wrote (205192)	10/5/2004 2:09:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573825

Personally, I think any regime that rules without the support of its own people should be removed by the UN. That's a rather extreme position. What authority would the UN have to do this? Many of the UN members including some of its more important members rule without a vote of their people, quite a few of these probably rule without the support of the majority of their people. How would the UN do this? It doesn't have any forces. Much of the deployable combat power belongs to the US, do you want the US to invade country after country under UN mandate? I guess we better mobilize to world war two levels. (When we had a military more then a half dozen times bigger from a population about half its current level). Do we have to invade China? That would be pretty difficult even if the war doesn't go nuclear. I figure we would have to take out North Korea's government, but I wouldn't want to be in Seoul while that is happening. Tim