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: tejek who wrote (160718)	2/12/2003 3:17:46 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575517

The threat is OBL.......I see it veryclearly. I don't see the threat from Saddam. It's not that hard. Even if they are not the best of buddies (maybe they are too) both hate the US. Saddam is probably not dumb enough to use his WMD outright, but he could easily toss some to the Al-queda crazies that would use it in a heartbeat. At the same time, Al-queda does not have a chance of developing WMD in caves...it takes a nation state. Couple that with the fact that Saddam is a problem all by himself, that would get exponentially worse if he develops nukes, and that he is in constant violation of the UN etc. and he is definitely a place to start. A post-Hussein Iraq is also seen as a way to introduce some stability into the whole region. How is it that you don't see this? Brian

To: tejek who wrote (160718)	2/12/2003 4:21:02 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575517

Ted Re.. don't know who Schumer is nor do I get your point. Schummer is the senior democratic senator from NY. The point is that Chris has been trying to convince everyone he can yell at, that the way to fight Al qaeda is to appease them. Don't do anything which might increase Al qaeda's ability to recuit personal. To a man, every senator said no, that isn't the way to fight Al qaeda. We need to go after him, and all agreed that Saddam is part of the war on terrorism. After yesterdays tape, I cannot understand how you can't see the importance of getting Saddams WMD away, before OBL gets them. It is just incredible how you can't even coutanence the possibility. Its not defensiveness you hear from me......its frustration. This turn of events was predictable as early as three months ago. If you knew 3 months ago that there was the possibility that Saddam would give his wmd to Al qaeda, then why all of the stalling for more time.. Maybe it is too late to keep all of Saddams WMD out of Al qaedas hands, but we have to keep the amount as miminal as possible. The threat is OBL.......I see it veryclearly. I don't see the threat from Saddam. And if you believe they're separate, then why do you always use the plural subject when talking about one or the other......see your last sentence above....the word "they". You were talking about Saddam and then you said "they". They both are threats, not just Saddam, or OBL, but both. Saddam supports terroist acts against the US, and its allies, and so does OBL. Ted Re...First I have never called Bush a liar........what I have said is that he and others on his staff use innuendo/allegation so often it begins to sound like facts. Its a common ploy used in politics and I don't like it. However, your accusation makes no sense when you look at what I said above. Things are screwed up and the only one at this point who can clean things up is Bush. Don't you really need to think about what you are saying first, before you say it. In the first sentence, you claim GW is using innuendo/ allegations, and that you don't like it; then in the next sentence, you do the exact thing you are accusing Gw of doing. I don't like it either, when you use innuendo/ allegations against Gw, just to satisfy this intense hatred you have. GW and some leaders in Europe have differences on how to deal with Iraq. I doubt if anyone can possibly know the perfect course of action to take. However, my point is, however imperfect that course is, it has to be better than doing nothing. Lets quit arguing, draw straws to see which countries are going to do what, and get it done. Frankly, whichever country is doing the work should be sble to chose the methods. This arguing is worse than the action.

To: tejek who wrote (160718)	2/12/2003 4:44:14 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575517

I don't know who Schumer is nor do I get your point. It is bizarre that you could come on this thread and purport to intelligently discuss the Pickerning nomination without even knowing who Chuck Schumer is. Bizarre. I've accused you of getting your news from the liberal media, but I've decided you live in a total media blackout. This isn't the first time you've disclosed something that brings into question your being uninformed about matters directly related to those you're commenting on.