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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patrick E.McDaniel who wrote (626)	3/29/1999 4:17:00 PM
From: Stormweaver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

>>James, should Clinton fight a war based on the poll results? I think for a nation to go to war you should have a significant majority backing it; ~50% is not good enough. Based on the CNN/Time poll results 74% of Americans are un-willing to accept ANY casualties. That's not a realistic expectation when you are about to start a ground war ... by the way congress just passed the okay for troops. I have a feeling protests against this will escalate in the States as Clinton (DRAFT DODGING, PERJURER) tries to sell this to Americans as a "moral obligation".

To: Patrick E.McDaniel who wrote (626)	3/29/1999 5:52:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

James, should Clinton fight a war based on the poll results? The first of Colin Powell's three basic rules for when to use military force is "strong public support." Powell is no dummy. He's been there, done that as much as (if not more than) any other American alive. BTW, his other two rules are a high probability of success and a clear exit strategy. And when these three principles are met and the decision is made to use force, it should be aplied with overwhelming strength and no halfway measures. So far, this campaign is batting 0 for 4. But what do you expect from a draft dodger in the White House?