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: i-node who wrote (162250)	2/27/2003 1:19:20 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576330

>You are totally wrong about this. There is a reason the administration decided, within days of 9/11, that Iraq had to be part of the war on terror. >Once we have eliminated Saddam, we are going to begin to see a decline in the rate of growth of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. This, and no other reason, is why we have to deal with Saddam at this time. The alternative is continue escalation of anti-Americanism, and continued threats to our nation on our soil. Dream on. We'd have to proceed to show our committment by rebuilding Iraq, and even then, we'd probably have to take out at least Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to start making real progress. We're talking trillions of dollars in expenditures here, and still no guarantee. Could you expand a bit more on what you think the next 20 years would look like post-Saddam? >You can't show me ONE, not ONE, government program that is run efficiently. Perhaps not, but in theory, government programs have the most potential for maximum efficiency. We need an administration that will overhaul, but not privatize government programs. -Z

To: i-node who wrote (162250)	2/27/2003 1:29:37 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576330

Iraq's not all that dangerous to us You are totally wrong about this. There is a reason the administration decided, within days of 9/11, that Iraq had to be part of the war on terror. No you are wrong.....you have little to support your argument. It is great we're going to liberate these people. It is great to see Saddam get his. It is great to eliminate a huge store of WMD. But the reason we have to deal with Saddam has NOTHING to do with Bin Laden, and EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. You lying asshole......for months you have argued that in part the reason for this war had to do with bin Laden. Lies and more lies. You can't make a Saddam/OBL connection so you make it with 9/11. And when the facts become too damning of your arguments, you disappear. ted