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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Guidance and Visibility -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Stocks who wrote (72201)	9/8/2002 9:12:59 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 208838

There's plenty of evidence that the US & allies have 60K-105K troops within proximity already. Unless Hussein attacks first, I don't see a full scale assault pre-election because of the political overtones. BWDIK? As for the constant warnings about Hussein and nukes, this is the part I don't get. Why must they persist in proposing that Hussein may go nuclear when the evidence is slim and the threat to us is virtually nil, even if he did someday develop that capability? I mean, aren't the bio and chemical weapons ENOUGH? Why do our leaders not trust us to see that and respond accordingly? I hate being treated like a mushroom and both parties do it, and it fries my tater tots. Why Saddam must go and why attics are safer than cellars: newyorker.com A good book to have on hand: search.barnesandnoble.com This is the type of info I think the Homeland Security team oughta be disseminating, not warning colors of the freeking rainbow.