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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (172)	9/5/2002 3:19:37 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

The case against Iraq, really Saddam, is self evident. We, as a nation whose security depends on continued economic health, can not allow a madman to continue to sit atop the second largest oil reserves while abutting the largest oil reserves. The world economy runs on oil. The madman in question has shown a willingness to slaughter thousands by acts of genocide and aggression, funds global terror, harbors terror suspects and starves his own people even as he builds new palaces for himself....

To: Lane3 who wrote (172)	9/5/2002 3:33:21 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

American Idol are in my repertoire Sorry to hear that. :-) Iraq I'll take. I saw no indication that they were doing that. They were protesting against the US gov't on behalf of a ruthless dictatorship that has used WMD on its own people, though. Be that as it may: <i"the money could be better spent on poor people than on bombs" You can make that argument any time about any war. Right up to the point where a foreign army comes marching in and steals everything you have. "before we wage a pro-active war, we should have a better reason than what we've heard so far" I'll agree with that. Not that I have any problem with the US taking out Saddam anyway. But a better reason would persuade others to go along.