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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (152507)	9/27/2002 5:13:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576890

No...let's invade Iraq instead, kill him (good), and inevitably kill a bunch of his innocent compatriots (bad) and lose many of our own people as well (very bad) to satisfy a vendetta. So much for rational leadership. And we should forget that we targeted him directly during the gulf war and managed to kill a bunch of innocent people then too. 1. It is not inevitable that large numbers of innocents (ours or theirs) will die. In the Gulf War, there were few civilian casulaties (While Clinton's war was a good deal less humanitarian, even IT killed relatively few innocents). 2. Where'd you get this "vendetta" crap? 3. In the Gulf War, the number of civilian Iraqi casualties was minimized. As a liberal and a dove, I'd think you would be grateful to the mean old Republicans running the war for sparing the lives of innocents. I know I am. Our powerful military conducts wars in the most humane way possible. Yes, a few innocents die, but more innocents died on 9/11 than have died in all United States wars since Vietnam, I'd guess. This is what a strong military gets you.