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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (527608)	1/21/2004 11:04:02 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The re-colonization of Iraq and Afghanistan are developments in the war by Islam against the West which PROVE that the war can be won. The next great victory over the enemies of America will be the debacle of the anti-American Democrat party in November, 2004...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (527608)	1/22/2004 1:40:02 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

ONCE AGAIN, the previous policy was that of the "Containment of Iraq"; this policy directly led to the attacks of 9/11, it therefore at least my opinion, that this policy, of "Containing Iraq" was no longer a viable one. The reason that most of the terrorists were Saudi, is because bin Laden decided to use a Saudi crew of Terrorists (according to the man who planned the attack, the teams were originally meant to be an international group, but bin Laden vetoed that idea) - mainly because he was offended that U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia fullfilling a UN Mandate. You claim that American troops remained in Saudi Arabia to protect "our oil interests". If that is the case, from whom were these troops protecting the oil from? Especially since "Saddam was merely a gnat on an elephant's ass". I'm not going to complain about 10's of thousands of Iraqi dead, when the previous regime killed millions of Iraqis and blamed those deaths on the UN and the United States. For you it's easy, just pretend that Saddam really didn't kill very many people. Well you are wrong. Saddam is no better than Idi Amin or Pol Pot - and it took an invasion to remove both of them too. re:"And about 3200 wounded on our side...not to mention 10's of thousands of Iraqi dead and wounded. We were in Saudi Arabia to protect our oil interests, not defend against Saddam, at least not as a primary objective. Saddam was a gnat on an elephant's ass."