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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (66919)	12/6/2002 10:25:00 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Sometimes you have to take a stand thats all and choose sides That is very difficult. As someone who has lived most of her life in the ME but educated in American shools for almost as long and now lives in Europe, I can very well understand both viewpoints. Both has reasons to fight. If the US fights Iraq who do you root for to win? That's easy - the US. But what do I think/feel if they then proceed to install a puppet government a la Afghan and immediately proceed to loot the oil riches of the country? Not so sure about that one... do you really believe iraq has no Wmd's? As a stubborn agnostic, I have to answer this question by "I do not believe in the existence of anything unless I see some proof I can bite into." <g> Even if Iraq does have WMDs, I don't see how this is grounds for an invasion, since: 1) many other countries also have WMDs 2) Iraq has not used them in the past 10 years against any of its neighbours Do you want him to have control of this stock or worse yet deliverable nukes or dirty bombs that can be passed on to terrorists? I don't know if Saddam controlling nukes and dirty bombs is any worse than Sharon or Putin controlling them. When such weapons exist, it is always a possibility that terrorists will get control over them, possibly by stealing. How is that a reason to invade a sovereign country?