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: tejek who wrote (133225)	2/21/2001 3:57:48 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571595

Ted. I was talking about the last Iraqi attack...I believe that was over a year ago. Apparently you didn't read the last paragraph of that article. Baghdad says 300 civilians have been killed and 900 others wounded during the raids. The Western countries insist they only strike Iraqi military targets after being fired upon during their reconnaissance flights over the "no-fly" zones. Copyright 2000 by United Press International. All rights reserved. << Satisfied? My point was there was little Iraqi provocation for the most recent attack. The papers are saying the reason [for the attack] is the Iraqi's rebuilding of radar facilities. Not according to Newsweek. PAGE 38 " But it wasn't clear whether bush was testing Saddam or vice vera. For more than a month the Iraqis stepped up their fire at allied planes patrolling the no fly zones. They shot off more than a dozen surface to air missiles, as many as they launched in all of 2000" Do you really think Colin would have looked very good if the U.S. ignored all of those missiles? What if a jet was shot down? Colin couldn't afford to look weak in the upcoming trip. Some are saying that's adequate reason for the US to attack; however I don't agree. Quit reminding me of how lucky we are Colin is in charge of foreign policy; instead of you.