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: Road Walker who wrote (173058)	8/1/2003 4:09:54 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574070

The other thing worth mentioning is that Iraq was the most secular state in the Mideast, and for that could be viewed as a stabalizing influence in the region. Do you think that the government in Iraq, in five years, will be secular? Or do you think they will go the way of Iran? John, neither.........I think it will be our 51st state and there will be a Disneyland Iraq by 2015. Those Iraqi demonstrators and complainers are media plants. IRAQIS LOVE US! HOW COULD THEY NOT..........WE'RE AMERICANS! ;~o ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (173058)	8/1/2003 5:15:09 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574070

JF, Bush has made it clear in a dozen speeches that he will go after (his definition of) terrorism whenever and wherever, without provocation. I don't see any praise coming from you regarding Bush's diplomacy in dealing with North Korea. That ought to be evidence that Bush isn't a total cowboy, but I'm sure you have other explanations that better fit your dislike of Bush. The other thing worth mentioning is that Iraq was the most secular state in the Mideast, and for that could be viewed as a stabalizing influence in the region. So you would have kept Saddam around just because of his alleged "stabilizing influence" in the region? And how do you suppose we keep Saddam in check without pissing off the Arabs? Tenchusatsu