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: Alighieri who wrote (149869)	8/17/2002 1:47:51 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570313

Al, At what point in the conflict leading up until world war 2 would you think America should have gotten involved? Waiting until Iraq uses a weapon of mass destruction against us is not the solution. We have now reached a point where we need to punish the people who support the terrorists. I'm all for a 101st82nd Airborne oil company located in the middle east. The natives need our dollars more than we need their oil. Steve

To: Alighieri who wrote (149869)	8/17/2002 10:48:43 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570313

But he has not used WMD against America, Americans or our allies, including his attacks against Israel during desert storm. Al, is it your position that we should wait until Saddam has actually used a WMD against the United States before attempting to disarm him? I ask only because it seems apparent to me that disarming Saddam now can be accomplished in a relatively sanitized way (relatively few American or Iraqi civilian deaths), while waiting, say, 5 years, would no doubt put at risk many, many Americans & Iraqi civilians. These are the choices we're faced with. Which makes more sense to you?