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 (152527)	9/28/2002 12:52:41 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1571766

Al, <A replay of Vietnam in Iraq?> These same "geniuses" predicted the exact same thing when it came to Iraq in 1991 as well as Afghanistan last year. Remember Taliban troops bragging about "high morale" just a week before the Northern Alliance took Kabul? The press gobbled up the Taliban's lies because it fit their liberal biases. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (152527)	9/28/2002 1:21:28 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1571766

an axcellent editorial A replay of Vietnam in Iraq? Excellent, if you don't require any reasoning in your reading material. Where is the nexus between Vietnam and Iraq? The article certainly doesn't provide any. The differences are striking, but most notably: 1) We had not been attacked by the Vietnamese; 2) Johnson was a weak liberal president who didn't have the stomach for the job, while today we have a strong conservative president who will do what has to be done; 3) The North Vietnamese had a powerful commitment to the war effort, while our intelligence suggest that the Iraqi people are clammering for us to liberate them. 4) We now have technology (thanks SOLELY to military spending under Reagan and Bush 41) to win such a war without inflicting significant civilian casualties and without substantial loss of life on the part of our military; 5) The American people are behind it, and will be even moreso before the fighting starts. In any case, there are many more differences than there are similarities. Given that indisputable fact, an article such as the one you quoted is totally unsupportable.

To: Alighieri who wrote (152527)	9/28/2002 2:04:22 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571766

Turkish police:Weapon-grade uranium seized From the International Desk Published 9/28/2002 12:01 PM View printer-friendly version ANKARA, Turkey, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- Turkish police seized about 15 kilograms (33 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium, valued at $5 million, according to Turkey's Anatolian news agency Saturday. If further tests uphold the preliminary police findings, the quantity would be by far the largest yet captured from illegal hands anywhere in the world. The previous record was set in July 2001, when security forces in Georgia arrested several men trying to sell less than 2 kilograms (4 pounds) of weapons-grade -- also called enriched -- uranium to Turkish buyers. Smaller amounts have been captured on several other occasions in the region. It is not yet clear whether the source of the seizure reported Saturday came from Georgia, but Anatolian described it as coming from an eastern European country. It also was unclear when the seizure took place. The Anatolian report said two men were arrested on smuggling charges after authorities acted on a tip and stopped a taxicab in the southern province of Sanliurfa. The uranium was hidden under a seat. While substantial, 15 kilograms alone of enriched uranium is not quite enough to make a "proper" nuclear bomb, according to U.S. government information. Twenty-five kilograms is considered the standard threshold to ignite such a device's searing force. Nuclear bombs also require at least least 8 kilograms of plutonium. However, the seized amount could likely work as a crude nuclear bomb, combined with conventional explosives to form a so-called "dirty bomb," or -- in the worst case -- blended with previously smuggled and as yet undiscovered amounts of enriched material to form an actual bomb. Nuclear authorities have stressed that they have no evidence to date that any rogue nation yet has that capability. However, earlier this week an intelligence dossier released by British Prime Minister Tony Blair asserted that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, while not yet in possession of nuclear weapons, has been trying to obtain enriched uranium via several African countries. South Africa, the only country on the African continent that has both uranium and the means to process it into weapons-grade enrichment, has vehemently denied any involvement. The former Soviet Union, with its intensively developed civilian and military nuclear programs, has been a source of great concern for nuclear scientists since its collapse 1991. While peaceful, the dissolution was followed by economic and social upheaval as Russia and other former member states struggled to transform themselves into market economies. A database set up earlier this year at Stanford University in the United States is trying to track the fate of lost or stolen nuclear material -- a situation that one Stanford researcher told the British Broadcasting Co. was "frightening."

To: Alighieri who wrote (152527)	9/29/2002 1:15:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571766

Al, it is inconceivable to me how anyone could make the assumption that the uranium was going to Iraq. There are so many alternatives but just about every conservative in the land says that's all the proof we need to go in and clean things up. And you dare not oppose them, or they will call you traitor or stupid or both. I can't wait to see which is the next country Bush goes after we attack Iraq. ted