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: Moominoid who wrote (136)	9/13/2001 8:08:46 AM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

The rationale during the Gulf war addressed creation of a power vacuum in Iraq that would have been filled by Syria and Iran. It was a delicate situation and although we had a "coalition" it would have been impossible to control the area to our advantage. It was a very rational decision at that time. Where is thread outrage concerning Dick Gephardt's unjust political criticism of President Bush? Implying lack of leadership and fear. He owes our president and the country an apology. Earlier someone mentioned Quebec and terrorist activities << Quebec and Paris also harbor coffee house meeting place/incubators for terrorists.>> A good point and one that dates way back to good old General Charles deGalle (SP) and the Quebec separatist movement. Quebec and Paris also harbor coffee house meeting place/incubators for terrorists.

To: Moominoid who wrote (136)	9/13/2001 9:54:09 AM
From: arno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

I never understood why they didn't go for Baghdad in the Gulf War. It was because after bombing the ever-loving crap out of Iraq for three months, the coalition of Arab countries supporting the US was getting shaky. We had accomplished the stated objective....driving Iraq out of Kuwait.

To: Moominoid who wrote (136)	9/13/2001 10:39:05 AM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 505

<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.> it is being reported Pakistan has agreed to support us against Laden and the Taliban---- but i want to hear a full confirmation of it--Max i also think,as i don't believe Pakistan has ballistic long range capacity----if they weren/t cooperative---to neutralize their ability to use nuclear--but as i say,i think Pakistan has gotten the message,we mean business.