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: cnyndwllr who wrote (221265)	2/26/2007 4:27:23 PM
From: Katelew	Respond to of 281500

Wow....you just nailed Hillary, imo. I'll vote for her but would like to see some kind of apology and/or convincing explanation of what she based her vote on. I think some of her positioning also stemmed from the desire to show the world a steel spine as she was preparing to present herself as a viable pres. candidate who could play with the boys.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (221265)	2/26/2007 6:51:54 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Even if the intelligence on WMDS in Iraq had been 100% accurate, going to war the way we did, when we did, and before we'd tried other methods of resolving the conflict was just knee-jerk foolish for reasons that run so deeply that even "competence" after the fact couldn't have changed the outcome. Oh please. We had tried 12 years of other methods, where did they get us? The inspectors were only back in the country in 2003 because of a large American army in Kuwait. Either one side was going to climb down, or the other side was. The status quo ante never continues after such a confrontation. No war, and sanctions and no-fly zones would have ended, and Saddam would have triumphed. It's just so obvious.