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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (27785)	2/9/2003 10:46:18 AM
From: re3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36161

<<<Bush calls an unstable leader of a nation with nuclear weapons a "pygmy". That is not only racist but totally moronic can someone provide a link for the above ? or at least advise me when this was said...

To: mishedlo who wrote (27785)	2/9/2003 10:51:27 AM
From: re3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

one of the problems with the "left" is that they criticize but have no viable alternative...now, i'm not saying you are left or right or anything in between but i did notice this morning you had a post about what should be done that was admitedly tongue in cheek...i cannot figure out what is going on with Al Qaeda either. Obviously, OBL was not caught, and I do not know if we should have expected better results on this matter or not. However, there is more to Al Qaeda than OBL. I do not know of any serious manner to tackle Al Qaeda, besides being vigilant on the home front. If you know what to do or how to do it, i'm all ears. I have mixed feelings about going after Iraq, surely there are pros and cons and perhaps a lot that we haven't been told and may never be told. But, I do see merit in establishing a position in the Middle East to eventually have and to use to combat terrorism stemming from the region. I'd like to know what you suggest as an alternative...

To: mishedlo who wrote (27785)	2/9/2003 2:33:48 PM
From: SliderOnTheBlack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

mishedlo ["I am proposing that attacking Hussein on the premise that he is an Islamic fundamentalist or even supports them is a blatant misguided lie."] Saddam is NOT being attacked because he is an Islamic Fundamentalist...that's banal hysteria. And for the "why not the Saudi's" arguement....the Saudi's aren't ramping their bio & Nuclear weapons programs, didn't have generals caught in Radio Transmissions, instructing for the deletion of references to Nerve Gas, didn't get caught buying Aluminum Tubes manufactured to tolerance levels used for only nuclear weapons development, didn't possess tons of AMD's for which they can not prove where/how/when they were disposed of, nor did they use such on their own people. The question is not if, or even when the Saudi's are going to be dealt with; because they already are...it was only the "how" that was unanswered, or up for debate. Taking control and establishing a physical presence in the Mid-East Oil Fields was not just a strategic pre-requisite to dealing with Saddam, but with the Saudi's as well... "2 Birds with 1 Stone" - you might say... Establishing physical control of Sadaam's Oil Fields - is like first getting a firm grip on the Saudi's "balls" with one-hand; while simultaneously cross-hairing a Laser-Light Site Dot on their forehead with the other...then begining negotiations... PS: It's not the "belief" in Fundamental Islam that is the problem; it's the "actions" of SOME Fundmentalists ... and their support of Anti-American terrorism.