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: Dan3 who wrote (152566)	9/29/2002 9:18:53 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1586313

Oh yeah? Oh yeah. It is a safe bet the weapons grade uranium was NOT headed for Saudi Arabia. Obviously, Iraq is the most likely destination, based on where it was found and the fact that we have substantial evidence that Saddam has been attempting to purchase it. What the hell does it take for a liberal to apply a little judgment? The attack on New York was essentially an act of the Saudi Government This is bullcrap. No question the Saudis aren't doing enough, but your remark is a ridiculous stretch. Instead they rail on about Saddam Hussein, who is unquestionably one of the more vicious dirtbags on the planet, but does not seem to be nearly as close to the Al Quida attacks on America as the Saudis. It isn't about Al Queda; it is about terrorism. But the taliban was trained by the CIA and supplied with arms by the US - just keep that in mind, before you start making past support of the taliban grounds for an attack. Again, a liberal having a tough time staying on the subject. Whether the CIA did or did not train Taliban is totally immaterial. Makes absolutely zero difference. That was then. This is now. I don't know why liberals can't understand this point: We fight wars based on what's happening today, NOT based on what happened 20 years ago first under the Carter administration, later under Reagan. As to the Bush Administration's "coziness" with the Saudis, I think it is a safe bet that Bush will use the Saudis for what he can. I recognize that liberals have a tough time seeing past their noses; however, the administration has carefully planned and sequenced the events to occur in the war against terrorism. Iraq was, no doubt, carefully chosen as the second target for a variety of reasons, some of which you can bet haven't been publicly disclosed.

To: Dan3 who wrote (152566)	9/29/2002 9:50:10 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586313

What the hell does it take for a liberal to apply a little judgment? Dan, you have to understand there is only one definition of the truth and its his. The attack on New York was essentially an act of the Saudi Government This is bullcrap. No question the Saudis aren't doing enough, but your remark is a ridiculous stretch. You noticed that, in spite of all the possible destinations, the uranium definitely was going to Saddam. That isn't a stretch but there is no question that your comments were. Its like Trent Lott, the big Rep. bro, said today......the Democrats in Iraq need to get their butts home and shut up. Can you believe the idiot thinks he can tell someone to shut up? Frankly, I have a broom handle he can sit on!! ted

To: Dan3 who wrote (152566)	9/29/2002 10:17:53 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586313

Dan, I share your views regarding Saudi Arabia, but how do you suppose we should deal with them? It's a highly complicated mess over there, as you can imagine. Tenchusatsu

To: Dan3 who wrote (152566)	9/30/2002 1:31:36 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1586313

Dan, First, we have to move everything out of Germany and move it into Iraq. Then when we put the Saudi's out of business by pumping our own oil, Saudi Arabia will be a much easier target to take over. Probably just drop foodstuffs and Mercedes spare parts to them and they will surrender. Then we retake Germany to resupply our German spare parts for automobiles. <g> Steve