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: hmaly who wrote (157483)	1/6/2003 10:05:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579864

Are you sure? Saddam has killed millions so far, Obl probably isn't over a hundred thousand yet. Iraq also has far more strategic interest, and we can remake Iraq, we aren't going to remake Al Qaeda. So just as Al said the other day, we start with the safest, easiest to win, and isolate OBL enough to make him vulnerable. Besides that, you omitted perhaps the single factor, aside from his malicious intent, that makes Saddam so dangerous: His oil. The guy has, at his personal disposal, one of the largest deposits of proven reserves in existence. With this oil comes immense power and unlimited funds. While Bin Laden is fiddle-farting around trying to figure out what kind of quasi-weapon to hit us with next, Saddam can be quietly building weapons systems that Bin laden can only dream of. This kind of power concentrated in the hands of someone who wishes to do you harm is not a good thing.

To: hmaly who wrote (157483)	1/7/2003 9:51:11 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579864

Which part is true, that more crashes are caused by shitty union mechanics than Al Qaeda or that Gw is over blowing the terrorism scare, or the part where I said, that should be the mantra of the Dem. party. Hmaly, back to where this came from. You used the fact that your sons fly occasionally to support a war on Iraq (incredible). You guys have now taken a pun and turned it into a debate. The point has been lost, which is that Bush can and should solve the Iraq matter diplomatically, as he says he will in NK, in fact a considerably more dangerous situation...one aggravated by the "talk loudly and carry no stick" approach the Bush administration has taken to the problem. and we can remake Iraq, we aren't going to remake Al Qaeda. So your point is that if we can't solve the real problem, a substitute will do? Al

To: hmaly who wrote (157483)	1/7/2003 2:31:17 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579864

Ted RE...But its true.......the Alaska Air crash off the coast of CA two years ago; last year's AA crash off the coast of NYC.....both were caused by poor airline maintenance. Which part is true, that more crashes are caused by shitty union mechanics than Al Qaeda or that Gw is over blowing the terrorism scare, or the part where I said, that should be the mantra of the Dem. party. In the first place, you mentioned only two crashes you claim was caused by shitty union mechanics, however AFAIK the NY American one was possibly caused by a faulty stabilizer. There, AFAIK has been no determination whether it was a design flaw or bad maintenance. Recently, I heard on the news that they thought maintenance was a problem on the AA airlines flight and that they were moving away from design as being the issue. If that had been a design flaw, the FAA would have ordered corrections to the industry by now. Same with the ALaska Airlines, there was grease on the gear, Boeing maintains it was the wrong type of grease, however, that didn't totally satisfy the NTSB as Boeing has had to put in redundant systems so if the primary fails, there will be a backup. Most commercial plane has redundant system controls on all major control surfaces, why didn't Boeing have one here? Shitty union mechanics, faulty parts, or bad design, or a combination of all three. Even if both were caused by shitty union mechanics, that would only be two planes, whereas there were 4, count them 4 on 9/11 alone. Plus there have been numerous attempts, Richard Reid, Kenya, hijacking etc. Pan AM 103. After 30 yrs of hijackings and death, isn't time you condemn the murders for what they are, murders, not righteous jihad, but murder, plain and simple. Hear in Boeing country they showed a photo of the bolt in question......it didn't look like any type of grease was on the sucker. Yes, there is disagreement on the quality of the grease but in the case of the CA crash, the stabilizer bolt was believed to not have been greased for quite a long time prior to the crash which caused it to malfunction. I don't have the statistics in front of me but maintenance tends to be a significant culprit in a lot of crashes. Airlines have made some big cutbacks in the quality of their maintenance......not necessarily in violation of FAA regulations but cutbacks nonetheless. More importantly, we have more to fear from OBL than Saddam. Why the impassioned Right can't see this is the huge question for the new millenium. Are you sure? Saddam has killed millions so far, Obl probably isn't over a hundred thousand yet. Saddam has killed millions? That's news to me. And if true, were they millions of Americans? If not, how many Americans? How about the thousands OBL killed? Weren't they Americans? So who do you think is tht bigger threat to Americans, not to Kuwaitis or Kurds or Iranians but Americans? Iraq also has far more strategic interest, and we can remake Iraq, we aren't going to remake Al Qaeda. So just as Al said the other day, we start with the safest, easiest to win, and isolate OBL enough to make him vulnerable. How do you think you isolate al Qaeda by defeating Iraq? ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top Terms of Use Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor.