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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marginmike who wrote (191443)	9/11/2002 11:15:49 AM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Saddam must go i agree with much of what you say, but this bit i don't get. why must saddam go? he used to be our ally, and it wasn't he who turned on us, it was us who turned on him. yeah, he's a murderous b-st-rd, no doubt about it, but so are our newest bestest friends in pakistan. and our long-time bestest friends in riyadh. as was marcos and that dipsh-t in indonesia and etc etc etc. we can't have "bad" friends and then claim badness as an excuse to get rid of someone. if he poses a genuine danger to us - and i mean US, not some arrogant piece of sh-t saudi prince - then we need to deal with him. to date, i have seen nothing indicating he's a credible threat to us. and if we are going to do it preemptively, then we cannot cry foul when some other small nation does something horrible to us preemptively. not if we want to be taken seriously. i am immensely concerned that to fight the last batch of lunatics we armed and financed we are arming and financing a fresh batch of lunatics. while we are in pakistan, now, while we have some leverage, we should do everything we can to get those d-mn nukes out of their hands. that's a disaster waiting to happen.

To: marginmike who wrote (191443)	9/11/2002 11:18:24 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 436258

If you can think clearly for a moment(I know it's hard for you), here are a few Real Questions you might want To Ask Your President: Once we have defeated Iraq, will we have to stay there one year, ten years, or perhaps longer? Shortly, we will expand NATO to include a large number of eastern European nations. Will our armed forces to have to stay in western and/or eastern Europe for another 50 years? A further question connected to the previous one - referring to our forces in Japan and in South Korea. We have been in Japan since 1945 and in South Korea since 1950. Will our forces stay there permanently? This is asked since we are now expanding NATO. Keeping the three above questions in mind, can you, Mr. President, foresee any time in the future when the United States has fewer foreign engagements than we do at present, given the fact that all such engagements place a great internal burden upon all Americans? It is widely reported that we are now building permanent facilities for our armed forces not only in Afghanistan but in all the other "stans", except one. How long do our armed forces have to stay there, right in the middle of Central Asia? Historically, after a war, the armed forces of the warring nations return to their own lands, even from territories they had gained in a war. Then, after that was done, a peace treaty is signed between the warring parties. Embassies are reopened and peace is again the governing standard. Do we here in the U.S. still have an idea of how an international peace, a real peace, operates? Are you willing to strive for a real peace? The sad political truth is that President Bush can answer NONE of these questions. PS You sound like the only one who had friends die in the World Trade Center.