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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1548)	9/29/2002 3:05:09 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

Each of us could lob hypotheticals at each other, and I don't think it would do anything but heighten an already emotional difference of opinion. Americans are of mixed sentiments about the idea of our invading Iraq at this point. It has nothing to do with intelligence or patriotism, everything to do with a simple difference of opinion about something complex and deeply important.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1548)	9/30/2002 5:05:42 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

Why not colonise Pakistan instead? They've got nukes too, and more terrorists than Iraq ever had. Oops, no oil. Get it in to that tiny, tiny mind... there is no connection whatsoever between Iraq and the Twin Towers destruction. Colonising Iraq will do nothing to change that: and nothing to the "War on Terror" - except deepen it for all of us, even you in your smugness. Caught any good Osama recently? Stabilised Afghanistan nicely, have we? BTW, I'd have more respect for the imperialists if any of them were going to be on the front lines themselves. Instead of sending innocents to die for Halliburton's next contracts. Why you voted these fraud-loving crooks in... penance?