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 : AMAT Off-Topic Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Knipschield who wrote (373)	11/27/2001 10:19:14 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Dale, I believe also that we are committed to cutting off escape routes for the taliban and to finding bin laden as well as providing muscle in the attack on kandahar. Whether pashtun or not, NA doesnt have the reach to attack in the south. Enough problems up north for those guys. Dangerous phase in the South and then i believe sudan, yemen with government help there and then Somalia where we have a debt to repay and then sadaam. mike

To: Dale Knipschield who wrote (373)	11/27/2001 11:16:21 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 786

Knip, Richard Perle, former undersecy of defense in bush #1 was on with chris matthews last night discussing iraq. He is a hawk. Matthews asked him why sadam would explode a nuke in the US because the US would destroy iraq. Perle said "really" are you sure? In this day and age such an attack would be done anonymously and if we didnt have a smoking gun who would we nuke? I got the chills when i heard this and now without any reservations i support taking sadam out. But this will take some time and we will need some allies on the ground in iraq. Bombing alone will not work imo. mike