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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (360593)	2/17/2003 9:28:09 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

" A U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, is the major reason that Bin Laden has attacked Americans (96 - Khobar Towers, 98 - U.S. Embassies, 2000 - USS Cole, 2001 - World Trade Center, Pentagon)" So if I follow your thinking, bin Laden (since he is a Saudi) is attacking us because we are in Saudi Arabia... You say we are in SA to contain Saddam and would therefore contend that if we occupied Iraq we could get out of SA and would not be terrorized by bin Laden? That begs the question: So why do we have to be in SA? We can certainly contain, as we have in the past, Saddam without a presence in SA. When he invaded Kuwait, the Saudi's begged us to come to their aid..... The Kuwaitis and several other Gulf countries don't object to our bases, and I think the Turks also allow our presence... So do you think that if we got out of SA, bin Laden would stop his terrorism??