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 : An Eye for an Eye -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (122)	9/12/2001 11:28:39 PM
From: Investor Clouseau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

>>A fellow called Bearden,who was bigtime CIA once,said that if they moved without the proof and then found out Bin-Laden was a decoy(say for Saddam)--the collateral damage would be extreme.<< In a war, you kill all the enemies Generals; not just some of them. IC

To: LTK007 who wrote (122)	9/13/2001 12:03:19 AM
From: KZAP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

Sadly in the Gulf of Persia war our commander in chief blew the whole mission,--kill Saddam! Unfortunately, according to what I understand, the mission was not to kill that scum, but it should have been. Nuclear is not the answer, however, another "Persian Gulf" type operation would be welcomed! No need to put our troops in danger. We need to use our brains & technology. These terrorist (scum-idioits) use suicide missions, that's hard to fight. We can't wait for them to die off that slow.(lol) Very soon Bin-Laden will be in a body bag. IMHO KZAP

To: LTK007 who wrote (122)	9/13/2001 5:54:44 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 505

I never understood why they didn't go for Baghdad in the Gulf War. They could have withdrawn soon after don't need to occupy Iraq forever. In the present case we should note that the Taliban's sponsors Pakistan have nuclear weapons - talk of nuclear strikes in Afghanistan (which would be pretty pointless) should take this into account. By the way the Australian Foreign Minister said it was an "act of war" against Australia too as 90 Australians are still missing or already confirmed dead. NATO is invoking the attack against one is an attack against all clause as well.

To: LTK007 who wrote (122)	9/13/2001 8:00:53 AM
From: JustTradeEm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

and then found out Bin-Laden was a decoy(say for Saddam)-- Max, it is known which middle eastern states are the funding behind Bin-Laden. We know who they are and they know we know ... The cat and mouse game has gone on for years .... and it will end here. I just hope that Americans have the strength to let out leaders do what we all know should have been done long before ! JB

To: LTK007 who wrote (122)	9/13/2001 9:33:35 AM
From: arno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

it can only be a Gulf of Persia operation all over again. Against whom? Sadly in the Gulf of Persia war our commander in chief blew the whole mission,missing the purpose of the whole operation--kill Saddam! Uh..let's see. My recollection is that our mission was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. To accomplish this we had to put together a coalition of Arab countries to attack other Arabs. The only thing that allowed this to happen was the Saudi's fear of Saddam attacking their oil supply. The result of that incompetence is with us to this day. And ignorance abounds, too.....

To: LTK007 who wrote (122)	9/13/2001 1:39:05 PM
From: thestockrider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

Max, sure we can wait for 'proof'. I think we have it already. I think we have enough evidence of a campaign (is it to politically correct to say 'WAR') against the US over the last decade. It's just a matter of whether the evidence is enough to motivate US leadership and populace to fight this war back to its roots and thoroughly destroy it. If this attack hasn't motivated the us enough, well maybe our nation is on the downside of its existence. It sounds like you would support a gulf war-like operation. Build a coalition. Preliminary air-force bombing to soften up the target. Send in the ground forces for a few months. Kill or capture the leaders. Then go home. Max, the gulf war strategy won't work here. Topography. Iraq desert, nowhere to hide. Afghanistan, mountains. This means bombing will be less effective. Taliban troops can hide behind mountains with stinger missiles or the soviet or chinese equivalent and shoot down us planes and helicopters. In the gulf war, the us could see iraqi soldiers from miles away, and even from space. Not so in afghanistan. The Soviet Union and the British both lost big-time in this topography. Killing Osama Bin-Laden, a few of his lieutenants, and even a few Taliban leaders will not stop the movement which gave them prominence and power. Bin-Laden has now set up a network of other combatants. Funding from Saudi relatives and petro-dollar laden sympathizers still rolls in. Life is just too comfortable for wealthy supporters of terrorists. All kinds of arab nations send some of their problem 16-24 year old males to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and will continue to do so, because if they stop, these destabilizing persons will be wreaking havok in their own kingdoms. A whole banking and arms supply network has been set up in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis at all levels have an economic stake in supporting the Taliban. Lastly, the mullahs and mosques that bred the Taliban are in Pakistan, still teaching hate to a new generation. Max, the gulf war solution will increase a president's approval rating and generate good feelings, but it won't conclude this conflict. Nukes do kill people indiscriminately within a certain radius. That's why they create terror. Terror in the hearts of the opposition will be needed before they stop this war against the US. Nukes and assassinations may not be used at first, but with this determined foe, they will be eventually. The problem is, the longer we wait, the higher the total price in lives for all countries.