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: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (191940)	9/13/2002 7:07:16 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

nor have you pledged to do the same if we go marching into Baghdad, guns ablazing, and discover he doesn't have a nuke... isn't that, too, telling? can i have an opportunity to respond? this isn't about just nukes. if saddam has no biological or chemical weapons and has made no effort to develop a nuclear bomb then i would. dmn skippy. i answered the question and backed up my pov with more than the hot air backing up your position. i really don't get this. saddam is a nasty, nasty man, but there remains no tangible evidence he poses a threat to us.* there is often no evidence of murder until the person is dead. do you not understand that? so why waste our political and military resources going after him when we can go after a country in the same part of the world that has demonstrated a capacity AND willingness to hurt us very, very badly. namely, saudi arabia. that would make much more sense to me... saudie is more of a rogue nation than iraq? something tells me you MUST have a vested self interest in iraq if you believe that.