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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (16814)	3/7/2003 12:04:16 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

That would be horrible, but it's a scenario that makes sense. Most of those countries must believe that it's only a matter of time before they join Saddam. At the first sign of unrest our forces will move in and take control. I have heard that many of those countries are not stable right now.Saudi Arabia is especially unbalanced. Maybe that's why Turkey isn't buying in.( literally )

To: PartyTime who wrote (16814)	3/7/2003 12:10:56 AM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

<If you were Syria, if you were Iran would you give a realistic consideration to the possibility that your nation might be next if the US were allowed to capture Iraq and then pour in a half a million or more troops with complete base control of the country? Why fight the US when it's a half-million strong and fully operationally equipped? They might decided it's better to fight now when the US-Brit force is weaker.> But, but, but, but that would be a pre-emptive strike and against the rules. Unless of course you are a Bush and think you make the rules. That is the exact can of worms that gets opened by a pre-emptive strike. Then everyone can be pre-emptive and use the Bush War Mongering as the precedent.