| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft still rules server OS market | |
|
||
| Time: 13:48 EST/18:48 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
And the software potentate looks secure to retain its lead in the worldwide market for server operating systems through 2007, Framingham, Mass.-based IDC reported Wednesday. During that period, shipments of both Microsoft's Windows and the open-source Linux are projected to see higher annual shipments, with the overall market for server operating systems expected to grow at a rate of 9.1 percent per year. In comparison, the market for client operating systems is projected to grow 7.5 percent annually. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 510 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:55:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/8/2003 5:00:43 PM |
|
"IDC has about as much credibility as George Bush. "
Oh, that's low. IDC isn't that bad. |
| #2 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 10/8/2003 8:40:55 PM |
| monkeydog - You sound like Baghdad Bob. |
| #3 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 10/9/2003 1:26:39 AM |
|
and sodablue sounds like someone still bitter from his 2000 presidential defeat.
swallow that bitter pill. its hard, but you can do it. |
| #4 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 10/9/2003 2:06:05 AM |
|
mooresa56 - 2000? That was so long ago. So much has happened since then. Why are you dwelling on the past?
I know it's gotta be hard to look back at the 2000 election and realize you voted for the wrong guy after all... but don't worry, things are going to get better. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/9/2003 10:39:18 AM |
|
Parker - Wow that's bizarre. Isn't that the same tactic you used back in 2000 to try to discredit Gore?
Don't you have some new tricks in your bag? monkeydog - Welcome back, Baghdad Bob! |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/9/2003 1:20:20 PM |
|
parker - Sigh, there you go again. Americans are really growing pretty damned tired of the petty divisiveness promoted by your Politics of Destruction. The problems facing this nation are far to serious for us to have to put up with this crap.
Why don't you do something positive instead of spewing lies about opponents. Why don't you tell us about all the great things Bush has done for this country in the past 3 years? Focus on the end results. Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago? Why? Americans are interested in results, not ideology. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/9/2003 3:46:53 PM |
|
parker - "I think he is a hero. "
But then you subscribe to the same ideology, whereas I am more pragmatic and work my arguments using logic instead of slurs. I mean look at this statement, "Many of Geroge Bush's opponent would have the US abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, which would do nothing but invite even more attacks angainst the US homeland. " Bush has already abandoned Afghanistan to the warlords. More of Bush's opponents would have had us focus on winning that fight instead of involving ourselves in an elective war. Clark has been quite clear on Iraq... "We broke it, we have to fix it." His primary disagreement is that Bush lied to the American public to force involvement in an elective war. But notice how you are unwilling to address that point, you instead try to make a claim that we're going to abandon the effort. Interesting, isn't it? Personally, I'm more concerned with our national security, and think someone who puts their personal(or party) ideology ahead of what is in the best interest of the nation is not someone I want as President, or in Congress for that matter. As an example... leaking the name of an undercover CIA operative because they voted for Al Gore in the last election is petty, partisan, destructive to the national security and just plain stupid. I'm tired of having a Republican President, I want an American instead. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 4:01:42 PM |
|
Now, now, blue, I thought you were above such attacks. Didn't you essentially just say we should focus on the positive? Um, then in your very next post you go back to attacking.
I'd like an American too. I'd like a man or woman of integrity. I'd like a man or woman of morality. In the last 12 years, I haven't seen a Republican or Democrat fall into either category. Clinton did some good things, but he lied to a grand jury and the American people. He cheated on his wife. Bush did some good things, but he lied to the American people. Rather than have the courage, whether fake or real, that Clinton had, he passes the buck and writes it off as somebody else's fault. Neither man has dealt honestly or honorably with the American people, and neither man deserves the respect of the American people. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a candidate for 2004 who does deserve our respect. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 6:00:57 PM |
|
parker, where are the weapons? Where are the weapons? Where are the weapons? Where are verifiable intelligence reports that say there were weapons at the time we entered Iraq? Where is the verifiable proof that there is a link no matter how small between bin Laden and Hussein?
We went to war, supposedly, because bin Laden and Hussein had hooked up and were breeding terrorist who aimed to attack the United States, right? The war is no over, the regime change was accomplished, and there is still no evidence that Iraq was hooked up with al-Qaida. There is still no evidence that Hussein and bin Laden were best buds or even on decent speaking terms. There is no evidence that any weapons Iraq supposedly had were to be used against the United States. There is no evidence that there were any weapons. Bush made a convincing enough argument to get us into a war. He fabricated and/or overstated the intelligence reports which supported his position. He has yet to produce evidence that his pre-war intelligence reports were accurrate. I and the rest of the American people are his boss, and I want him fired for the manner in which he has executed his duties as our employee. It seems to me that you have your head in the sand, Mr. Parker. I'm all for supporting the president, but if he deserves no respect, he shouldn't get any. We shouldn't be blinded by virtue of his office. We shouldn't overlook the fact that he deceived the American people and the world. Clinton, whom I assume you despise, did the same thing albeit under different circumstances. Clinton doesn't deserve our honor and neither does Bush. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/9/2003 6:05:30 PM |
|
BobSmith - "Now, now, blue, I thought you were above such attacks."
Now I'm not sure what you are referring to as an attack. My last statement there was to point out that I don't care what party the President comes from as long as their focus is on doing what's right for America. What I grow exceedingly tired of is people who don't care about America, but only their respective political parties. People who are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and cause harm to fellow Americans solely to support their petty Ideology. It disturbs me that in recent opeds and interviews Ellsberg(Pentagon Papers) and John Dean(Watergate) have noted that Bush is even worse than Nixon in this regard, and I just hope we can seal the wound before the damage becomes too great. "Unfortunately, I've yet to find a candidate for 2004 who does deserve our respect. " You're right. It's exceedingly rare to see people engaged in public politics who are honestly interested in serving the nation's interests. It's good too that you've paid attention and noticed the difference in severity between Clinton's failings and those of Bush. No man is perfect, but I don't see why it is unreasonable to assume there are not men(and women) out there who are basically honest and god loving, and have been all their lives, not just when they decided to run for public office. For myself, Wesley Clark is the second candidate in my lifetime that I've seen who is deserving of our respect. The first candidate was Fred Grandy of Iowa. Neither man can walk on water, but they both strike me as having the good old home values that my family cherishes. Anyway, I do want to thank parker and his friends for one thing. Motivating me. I've been complaining about the festering puss that has infected the Republican Party over the past 15 years, but never felt like doing anything about it. Until this year. Tonight I go to represent Clark's campaign at a after Debate Q&A forum at the University of Minnesota. I'm not a public speaker, I was the kid who called in sick the days he had to read something in front of the class. "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important" |
| #11 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 6:35:21 PM |
|
In 1998 I was a rich Internet multi-millionaire. I had the wine, the women, then inexplicably the market collapsed and I lost my fortune. (adaptation of Val Kilmer's line in The Saint) I have yet to regain my money. It was true in 1998 that I was extremely wealthy. It is not true today. Bill Clinton was in office in 1998 when it could be proven that Iraq had illegal arms. George Bus is in office today when it cannot be proven that Iraq still has illegal arms.
Do you see the difference, parker? The passage of time is extremely important. If I said that the Germans are murdering Jews and we need to go teach Germany a lesson, and I based my attack on intelligence that is 60 years old, then I'm a fool. What was true 60 years ago, isn't always still true today. What was true 5 years ago, isn't always still true today. Clinton could back up his claims 5 years ago. Bush can't today. Face it, your president hood winked you. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 7:37:09 PM |
|
blue, this isn't bait...
Prior to Clark's entry I had ruled out Bush and each Democratic candidate for one reason or other. I'm not familiar with Clark. Why do you support him? Why should I vote for him? What caveats should I be aware of? This post was edited by BobSmith on Thursday, October 09, 2003 at 19:37. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 8:02:25 PM |
|
If you can't tell the difference between a 5 year old intelligence report and a current intelligence report, you've got problems. If we were talking Apple, I'd say you need to step out side of Mr. Jobs' RDF (Reality Distortion Field). The G5 isn't the fastest PC and it is entirely possible that a 5 year old intelligence report is out of date.
Your logic is skewed. Isn't it possible that in 5 years, the weapons could have been destroyed, sold, moved out of the country, etc. ? Yes, it is possible. Since that is possible, the fact that something existed in a specified geographic area, Iraq, is no guarantee that it is in the same geographic area today. As such, without current proof, Bush's claims are baseless. I'm a liar? Um, no. You refuse to see the facts. You refuse to admit the possible. You refuse to even say what the CIA now says, namely, that there is no evidence that there were still WMDs in Iraq in January of this year. If everyone is so sure there are weapons, I'd like to see some. If you're so right parker, where are weapons? Don't tell me what was going on 5 years ago, tell me where they are now. Your foolishness blinds you. You're walking in plain daylight and screaming, "The sun doesn't shine!" I'm not hate-filled. I even voted for Bush in 2000. It was he who betrayed me and every other citizen of this nation. It is he who betrayed our trust and his office. It is he preferred his war to his integrity. This post was edited by BobSmith on Thursday, October 09, 2003 at 20:07. |
| #14 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 10:44:27 PM |
|
"If nothing change [sic], then the reports are equally valid. No UN personnel were in Iraq. I don't theink the US had too many spies in Iraq."
OK, so because we didn't see that anything changed, that means nothing changed? That's bad logic. Or perhaps our intelligence is so great that we know that nothing changed? If that's the case, where are the weapons? You see, it's really simple. Bush said there were weapons. He said there was storng intelligence to back him up. He took us to war. Several months later, we still see no weapons. If the intelligence upon which Bush relied was so great, why can't it show one little nuke? The thing is, we went to war on suspicion. That's bad. We went to war on the strength of the President's persuasive speaking, not on evidence. That's bad. The president misspoke several times regard intelligence reports, the most glariing was the state of the union speach. That's bad. Bush also said that bin Laden and Hussein were working together, but we don't see evidence of that either. So, friends of mine have been killed for to satisfy our president's lust for war. That's bad. You see the problem, parker? I'm trying to look objectively at this situation. There was not and still isn't sufficiently compelling evidence of WMD in Iraq now or in the last 9 months to justify going to war. If Bush had never mentioned WMD or an al-Qaida link, and just said that we were going to topple Hussein, that would be a different story. If he had not tried to decieve me, I'd not have reason to lose respect for him. The problem is his integrity. He should have waited till he had proof. He shouldn't have lied about the intelligence he had. Our commander in-chief is the one with the integrity problem, not me. BTW, it's nice that you are sufficiently mature to avoid making personal attacks against me. It's really great that you can sift through this dilema without making all manner of rediculous, baseless, and inaccurrate statements against me. Kudos to you! |
| #15 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 10/10/2003 1:37:14 AM |
|
#29: Parker, things like facts and documentation are wasted on liberals, I thought you would've figured that out by now. It's all about feelings.
See, Clinton can botch national security, the economy and everything else he's touched (including just about every campaign he's 'helped' since his presidency including Clarks) but because he was "trying" and he "felt" that he was doing a good job, then that's ok. But since Bush is trying to be accountable and do the right thing, but without a lot of feeling, then that's bad. #30: As far as the State of the Union speech, it's still not clear as to the Nigerian business. It's never been fully proven (lots of circumstantial evidence), but no one has disproven it either. The British have quite a lot of documentation on it and people who know a lot about it are tight lipped or mysteriously die when asked about it. That tells me there's something more than just some intelligence slip ups. Maybe it was a big slip-up, or maybe there's a conspiracy or something, I dunno, but don't be so quick to write those off. It's a fact, undebatable and fully documented that Saddam had WMD as several points in history and has on at least 2 occasions used them. He had one of the world's largest stockpiles of Anthrax and that just somehow magically disappeared before 2003? Also, it's well known and documented that the French and Germans had been supplying Saddam with machinery and equipment and training/know-how for building a weapons-grade nuclear program (things like cetrifuges, enrichment facilities, scientists, etc). That's the #1 reason France and Germany didn't want to go to war because they have LOTS of dirty laundry lying about in Iraq. And I really grow tired about all the people who are saying, "We haven't found them yet, so there musn't be any WMDs!" well, that's just bunk. It took us several months to find the stain on Monica's dress. Also, we're STILL... TO THIS DAY finding weapons caches, stolen loot/treasure, documents, etc from Hitler's regime back in WWII. And I imagine we'll continue finding Saddam's dirty secrets for many years to come (Hitler had what? 8? 10... 12 years or so? Saddam had about 35 years!) |
| #16 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/10/2003 2:34:41 AM |
|
lmao! So, I'm a liberal now? Remember what I said about you reading with bias, daz? You don't know me. You don't know my political stance. You're stereo-typing and misjudging me. I'm about as conservative as they come. It just so happens, though, that I believe in integrity and that I don't think Bush has much of it.
Did you see me defend Clinton? No, you didn't. That's a nice non sequitor, but it has no relation to this thread or anything I've said. Facts and documentation are wasted on liberals (assuming you're calling me a liberal)? Hmm, that's a nice ad hominem, but again, it has no relation to this thread. State of the Union. If the matter is still up in the air, it never should have been included in the speach. Bush jumped the gun, big time, then after, he let the CIA take the heat for it. A man of honor and integrity would have taken responsibility for it himself. WMD. Did I say there weren't any in Iraq? No. I said we don't have evidence of them in Iraq, yet we went to war. Considering the stringent procedures for executing a single person convicted of first degree murder, you'd think it should have required more evidence to sentence our boys to death in Iraq with this war, not to mention those international troops who've been killed and the Iraqis who've been killed. If he didn't have solid evidence, and I don't mean Bush's strong opinion, he shouldn't have stated WMD as our reason for going to war. He did though. He deceived, lied, and distorted. He led us to war on false pretenses. France and Germany. If it is so well known what they did, then what's the point in hiding it now? Um, if it is already known, they can't really hide it, now can they? I could be wrong, but maybe the citizens of Germany and France wanted evidence to support Bush's claims, which evidence they never received. WMD revisited. Again, nice non sequitor. Monica has nothing to do with WMD. Bush said there were WMD in Iraq. If he was so sure they were there, presumably he'd have known where they were, right? If his intelligence was so reliable, then it should have produced at least one nuke site, one cache of anthrax war heads or something, don't you think? Hitler. Um, once again, non sequitor. Hitler has nothing to do with the fact that Bush took us to war on the strength of what he claimed was very reliable intelligence regarding WMD. That great intelligence has yet to pan out. |
| #17 By 37 (64.109.30.2) at 10/10/2003 10:55:25 AM |
|
See, Clinton can botch national security, the economy and everything else he's touched (including just about every campaign he's 'helped' since his presidency including Clarks) but because he was "trying" and he "felt" that he was doing a good job, then that's ok. But since Bush is trying to be accountable and do the right thing, but without a lot of feeling, then that's bad.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you! Bawahahahahaha. Talk about complete and total lack of mind! Are you serious? ROFL! |
| #18 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/10/2003 2:34:29 PM |
|
BobSmith - "Prior to Clark's entry I had ruled out Bush and each Democratic candidate for one reason or other. I'm not familiar with Clark. Why do you support him? Why should I vote for him? What caveats should I be aware of?"
I don't have a one line answer. He's pragmatic, and feels our actions should live up to our words. We should be setting an example for the world in promoting capitalism and democracy. He displays a passion and love for America and it's institutions that I've not yet seen in other candidates. It's enthusiasm and optimism. But the key point to me, he has the self-confidence and courage to stand up to some of these ridiculous false accusations of the sort we're seeing from daz and parker. That is, he doesn't let the opponent define him into a corner, he argues back and says This is what I believe, and This is why I believe it's so. But he's not shrill, or negative, but rather civil. It's very effective. Caveats... I guess that depends on how you look at it. He's not a party munch. He voted for Nixon in '72 and admits to it. He voted for Reagan in '84. He voted for Clinton and Gore, but yet after Bush took office he did praise him. So he's getting beat up a bit by some of the Dems arguing he's not a true party munch. But from 34 years in the military, General Clark grew up in an atmosphere of non-partisanship. As a military leader, you reported to the CINC, no matter what party they were with. It was a level of respect that was due the position. But I think what's happened with Clark, and this is something that is happening throughout the military ranks and this nation... is the realization that Bush and the Republican party have really deceived America. What Bush ran on in 2000, and what the GOP is claiming today is in polar opposition to what they are doing. I expected this, but some people did not. Clark mentions that after 2001 when he was visiting old friends in the Pentagon, the military had pretty much been told by Bush that they were going after Iraq even if Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. They were then going to take out Syria, Iran, Somolia, Yemen, whatever... playing hopscotch across the map and taking out all the old enemies in the area. But this isn't what Bush told the American people, is it? He told them something else, to justify his war, but his real reasons were about something else. Bush may very well feel he had a valid reason to invade Iraq outside of WMDs, and he may be right, I don't know. But the point is that was not the argument that was brought before Congress, and it isn't an argument that has been properly debated in our society. In effect Bush is trying to act like a Monarch, rather than a President... That isn't the American way. So Clark and a lot of the military leadership is pretty angry about this. Zinni is out there now pretty much demanding Bush resign, a number of other former Generals including Shinseki and Schwarzkopf have been critical of what's happening. The whole affair runs counter to the lessons we learned from Vietnam. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/10/2003 2:39:00 PM |
|
Almost parker, the issues are these:
Bill Clinton had verifiable intelligence (US, UN, even the TV news showed Iraq's WMDs from that time period) that Iraq had WMD at the time that he ordered an air strike. George Bush claimed he had verifiable intelligence that Iraq still had WMDs. He did not. He sent us to war on the strength of his deception. He put troops on the ground (Clinton didn't), got our boys killed (Clinton didn't), and spend a helluva lot of money (Clinton didn't). Most important, he deceived. George Bush claimed Iraq and al-Qaida were hooked up. He never did and still doesn't have evidence of this. Again, he deceived. With respect to Clinton's strike vs. Bush's war, Clinton was honest and Bush was not. Now, we could go on and say that Clinton only ordered the strike to take the pressure of him in the midst of his impeachment procedings, but that's an unrelated issue. At least with respect to WMDs in Iraq in fall of 1998, Clinton told the truth. |
| #20 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/10/2003 2:46:58 PM |
|
Thanks for the info, blue. I hope what you have said about Clark is accurrate. You've described the type of person I want in office.
But this isn't what Bush told the American people, is it? He told them something else, to justify his war, but his real reasons were about something else. Bush may very well feel he had a valid reason to invade Iraq outside of WMDs, and he may be right, I don't know. But the point is that was not the argument that was brought before Congress, and it isn't an argument that has been properly debated in our society. In effect Bush is trying to act like a Monarch, rather than a President... That isn't the American way. Yep, that's my point exactly. Wow, after two years of visiting this site you and I finally have a major political issue in common. |
| #21 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/10/2003 3:05:07 PM |
|
BobSmith(continued) -
Anyway Clark took a different path from Zinni. He came to realize that what he stood for, and the American values he cherished were not the values of the Republican party, but of the Democratic party. But you wouldn't know that if you listened to the conservative media. The Democrats haven't been very well organized in recent years, and they haven't been effective advocating those values. It's a point that has made me frustratingly mad at times. What kinds of things am I talking about? Well, one of the primary examples that Clark has pointed to is a claim by Bush back in 2000 that the military was crippled under Clinton's budget. He was going to fix that. Well he's increased spending, certainly, but it's been on fancy weapons systems and other pork barrel and boondoogle projects. There have been acts passed in Congress supporting pay raises, better housing, better services, better veteran support. Guess what? Bush killed these. So who was Bush talking to back in 2000? It wasn't Americans, it wasn't the vets, it wasn't the troops... Bush was talking to a handful of special interest corporations like Raytheon. We're working with some Veterans groups, like the Vietnam Vets of America, etc. They're mad as hell because Bush slashed the Veteran's spending by like $15 billion. So we're closing Vet hospitals, cutting back on care, just as these former Vets are in need of them most as they age and still dealing with the wounds suffered. Clark has also been focusing on other issues. His economic plan is more akin to Clinton's... reducing the deficit, promoting small business investment to encourage growth and job creation. He's a strong proponent of Free and Fair Trade. He's a tremendous proponent for the United Nations and NATO. His belief is that we created these institutions and it is our duty to make them relevant. Rather than sitting back and sniping about problems, we should be engaged in finding solutions. I loved it in one of his speeches, he said something like "Look, I'll be honest... I can't explain why Iraq was to chair a committee on weapons disarmament, or Libya chairs the UN Human Rights body. But that's not going to change by our being disengaged from the UN." Anyway, it's a good message. We'll see if he can get the nomination. He stands a strong chance, as he's doing exceptionally well in the southern and western states, and fairly well in northern states. |
| #22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/10/2003 3:32:50 PM |
|
BobSmith - "Wow, after two years of visiting this site you and I finally have a major political issue in common. "
I think we've always agreed on basic principles. The only thing we disagreed on was my defense of Clinton. But I defend him on his overall policies and good work, not on the one or two actions which I am ashamed of. I think what we have found in the long run, is that those who "preached moral values" were instead the reincarnation of the pharisees. |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/10/2003 3:37:41 PM |
|
BTW parker...
"It is ok for Bill Clinton to order Wesley Clark to liberate Kosovo from a dictator murdering Muslims -- even if that dictator does not openly threaten the USA. " Kosovo threatened European stability. Kosovo was a NATO operation, and it was the US duty to be involved in this because they are our allies. There were a million refugees flooding out of the area, this was a clear and present danger at that moment. Iraq... Well we had that contained. In fact, this is what Colin Powell had to say about it in 2001 to the Foreign Minister of Egypt... http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, October 10, 2003 at 15:39. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/10/2003 4:16:34 PM |
|
blue, ya, pharisees and hypocrites. The reason I say I'm not a Republican, yet very conservative, is that too many Republicans don't practice what they preach. The reason I'm not a Democrat, is that I don't like many of the things they preach. I also think the often the don't believe what they preach. They simply say what they think people want to hear. I'm annoyed by dishonesty.
And, of course, I don't do well when Clinton is defended. Interesting that in 2001 Powell said Iraq didn't have "any significant capability with respect to WMD." |
| #25 By 16045 (32.96.48.4) at 10/10/2003 6:16:27 PM |
| go windows server 2003!!! i suck... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 510 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:55:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
