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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (106637)	7/20/2003 10:49:30 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

Our policies are changeable or adaptable to do the job- which is fighting the war on terror. The words "with us or against us" originally related to "in the war on terror" and have now been shortened for convenience and can be misconstrued by the Press to apply to all national relationships. Country leaders know very clearly what the words mean, from our continued discussion of WMD's and terrorists. Since the US tries to get a coalition working together to support its anti-terrorist efforts, it is not a bad change to shorten the wording and make it more general, meaning will you join our Coalition. . . Saddam was a terrorist of the worst kind, to his own people yet, and his regime is gone. How goes the argument that attacking terrorists would get them all stirred up and actually really, really, angry and cause more frequent and more violent acts? How goes the argument that Iraq would suffer up to a million casualties?. Did somebody lie about that?. Why did they lie? Was there a secret agenda or conspiracy? Maybe we should appoint a committee to track that down to the originator. (s) For casualties, we are still running at an average of less than 200 per war for the last three wars. If N Korea could do as well, they would own 3 new countries and still have 5,999, 500 soldiers ( actually a lot more than that since pregnancies among military personnel would exceed the losses) theage.com.au Sig