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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (31704)	2/26/2004 3:21:01 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

"Don't forget that I live within blast range of even a small nuke targeted at the Pentagon." I used to live at Riverhouse in Pentagon City. It got evacuated on 9/11.

To: Lane3 who wrote (31704)	2/26/2004 4:07:07 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

When they get nukes, if they get nukes, and when they get a way to get those nukes here, then the risk goes way up and we should be very afraid. I still submit it makes no sense to be afraid of what they would do if they could do when we know they can't do it The evidence for what they've got now is largely unknown to any of us, since we are not the CIA. We do know they're trying because they say so. They can wreak enough havoc even without nukes that an aggressive attitude is called for. Do you think that Libya would have flipped if Bush had continued Clinton's diplomacy-with-feeble-threats approach? If Libya had not flipped, we would not know about, or be disarming, AQ Khan's Sams Club for nukes. The threat is sufficient that we cannot sit back and wait for them to prove to us that they are dangerous. They proved that they were dangerous on 9/11. Waiting might cost us a city.