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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (5251)	3/29/2003 3:15:22 PM
From: Sojourner Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Turkey were almost bought with money, but the oil fields would definitely bring them in. The problem would be if the Kurds would agree. But I think they would take Turkey over Saddam. I have always contended this was about Israel and Bushs desire for moderate states in the region. I have already addressed that. It would take a lot of posts to go over that again. As far WMD goes, I believe the tapes Powell played at the UN. As far as Pakistan, yes I see inconsistancies there, but they agreed to work with us and have helped. One inconsistancy there is that India feels we are not supporting them on the Kashmir issue more. When we try and be consistant, Saddam and other uses it as a weakness. Bush is bashed more than Clinton by Palistinians, even though he is first US president to say there should be a viable Palestinian state. Clinton nor Carter did that. And Carter was the one who backed the rebels in Afganistan. Clinton on the other hand did a great thing helping in the Balkens. Overall the US has been consistant in helping world. They rebuilt Japan, Germany, and helped France, England, Phillipines in WW2. However, what I am suggesting we have limited exit strategies on Iraq and may have to pick from a less than the best option.