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: jlallen who wrote (176)	9/5/2002 3:27:51 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

I actually agree with that except for the oil part. We should do it to avoid being held hostage by a madman seeking to develop ever more sophisticated weaponry. His research programs, regardless of their success, are not defensive in nature. They are to obtain biological, nuclear, etc. weapons of mass destruction. Bush should (and I suspect is about to) tell us enough to persuade the reasonable that Saddam actively seeks those weapons. Then he should arm the military and go on in. If it must have a name, call it Project Exterminator. The part of the world that won't be grateful when we are done includes a large number that will hate us no matter what. We can't sit around waiting for their permission.

To: jlallen who wrote (176)	9/5/2002 3:28:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

The case against iraq is self evident. The case for starting a war can never be made by a glib assumption of self evidence. War, particularly a a paradigm shift to pre-emptive war, is serious business. A few of the famous hand gestures and facial expressions of dismissal from the Secretary of Defense are not satisfactory. Perhaps your "self evident" argument is the basis of their thinking and is, indeed, a sufficient basis, but I'd like to see them make it in an earnest fashion rather than just blow off people's concerns.