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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (48386)	9/30/2002 11:15:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

CB I can help you here: < We did not start this war. We are not the attackers. We are the attacked. As the ones who have been attacked, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves. If you disagree, please explain the factual basis for your disagreement. > When France attacked New Zealand, they started the war. We were attacked. We were not the attackers. We have the right to protect ourselves. You are either with us or against us in the fight against the Matrix of Malevolence. Let's blow up a bunch of French children to defend us. Well, we won't actually target them, but they might be a bit of collateral damage. You see the dilemma? Heck, even if there aren't any children on board, I'm reluctant to blow up the French America's Cup racing boat because I'm not sure that it would actually achieve anything. Anyway, it goes so slowly that I feel sorry for them and they are proving that nuclear power is no good anyway - they just lost their first race by way over a kilometre. I'm not sure just how satisfying I'd find revenge against people who weren't directly involved. Even revenge is problematic [I'd prefer to have a court case in case I was mistakenly taking revenge against innocent people who just seemed to me to be guilty]. Does that help? Mqurice

To: Ilaine who wrote (48386)	9/30/2002 11:19:04 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "We did not start this war [with Iraq, LOL] ..." Hey, if you can convince a jury of our peers, then I think you have a case. Right now, the United Nations ain't buying it. -- Carl

To: Ilaine who wrote (48386)	10/1/2002 12:13:11 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

< We did not start this war. > I believe that 15 of the 19 terrorists were SAUDIS, were they not? The majority of the funding came from SAUDI ARABIA. Crown Prince Abdullah from SAUDI ARABIA was invited to the ranch in Crawford for barbecue. So, therefore we should bomb IRAQ. Hello? Fortunately the surviving family members of the victims of 9/11 are not buying this bait and switch, and are suing SAUDI ARABIA to reveal their role in all of this. < We are not the attackers. We are the attacked. > We are going to send bombers to Iraq to strike a dormant military within their own borders, and we are not the attackers? Have you gotten permission to redefine the word? < As the ones who have been attacked, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves. > The attackers are dead, remember? How did Hussein become the proxy attacker? Furthermore, Iraq has no missiles that can reach the U.S. Despite this minor detail, according to polls, most Americans believe that Saddam can hit us with a nuclear missile. There is clearly a failure of the mainline media to get this important fact across. Lately they have been nothing more than an extension of the White House press secretary. There is no evidence of Saddam using force beyond his borders for 11 years, yet you and Shrub believe that he must be stopped. Stopped from not doing anything, to actually doing something drastic, now that he has nothing to lose? Del