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: Alighieri who wrote (160210)	2/6/2003 3:21:49 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1579127

Al Re..Powell made an oblique reference to this. Oblique? As in Powell was whispering when he said it. Or he tried to sneak it in in the middle of a sentence. Powell stated clearly and forcefully what the connections were. And he stated the he got the information both from Al Qaeda interrogations, from electronic eavesdropping, and from the same defector who gave them info on the ricin attacks in France and Britian. Powell didn't just sneak it in, it was the centerpiece. Let's ask the Iraqis to show us the trailers. They admit to having them and they say they are used for agricultural purposes. Let's ask them to show them to us. Quit treating me like an idiot. You couldn't get the stupidest kid in first grade to believe that story. This is obvious bull$hit. See my prior post to Ray. Our troops will be there in far more hostile conditions after we go into Iraq. Reread your post. You said the US could keep its troops in the Gulf,presumably as long as it takes to contain Saddam, as a forceful display, without exposing the troops to danger. There is a danger there, not as great , by the hour,as the one posed by invading, but there is a danger, and if stretched over yrs, could = the one posed by invading. The Us lost about 300 in the Gulf war, several in Kosovo, 130 in Afghanistan. It wouldn't take all that successful of an attack to = those casualties, on troops stationed there. Lebanon did, Somalia was less, but it only covered a few months. So will our citizens all over the world. Ive got news for you, our citizens have been in danger for a long time, or haven't you heard of 9/11? Secondly, those same dangers existed when we attacked Japan,Germany and NK, and Iraq in the Gulf war. Yet not one of them has yet to mount a serious threat, much less carry out, and disaster comparable to what Al qaeda did. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbour was avenged by us when we defeated Japan. Just how many sneak attacks, have they perpetrated upon us since. I have proof from that crushing the enemy stops these attacks. What proof do you have that appeasement is the better policy. Taking Iraq would split the nations who support terrorism in half. This is exactly what AlQueda wants. According to who. Your great militaristic mind? With the Iraqi population on our side that leaves 22 mil. less for Al qaeda to recuit from, plus it divides the opposition. Only a general with a death wish would want that. Isn't that what a loser always says. If you think and act like a loser, you will be a loser. Winners don't run and hide. What made us losers in Vietnam big shot? LOL Big shot? Am I getting to you? We were losers in Vietnam because we didn't have the moral ground, and because we fought the war, not to win, but to tie. The US didn't want to defeat N Vietnam, because that would have taken invading N Vietnam, which meant China getting into the act. So we fought a war to try to fight it to a stalemate, and N Vietnam would give up trying to win. Guess what, Vietnam had a better will to win than we had. The same is true with this war. Fighting the terrorist to a stalemate isn't good enough, because they have been going at it for 40 yrs against Israel, and show no signs of letting up. If we want peace in my lifetime, we have got to do what it takes to win it. am so flattered by your approval. LOL... Believe me, you deserve every word I give you. Why are we willing to leave soldiers there for one purpose and not another based on a peaceful outcome? After 30 yrs of Saddam, just what kind of peaceful outcome are you hoping for. If Saddam doesn't give up now, he never will.