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: carranza2 who wrote (50651)	6/17/2004 2:23:13 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

There is no insurance for the kind of threat Saddam presented, only risk. Don't forget that there is risk in action as well as inaction. In the ultimate analysis, Saddam's continued presence as we slid down Hubbert's Peak was absolutely intolerable. I assume an "IMO" is implied... <g>

To: carranza2 who wrote (50651)	6/17/2004 3:24:36 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793964

I think our Iran situation is that if Bush is re-elected, we will take care of Iran if they won't back off. If Kerry is elected, we won't. If that happens, Israel or NYC/DC will be hit in the next 10 years. That alone should settle the election.

To: carranza2 who wrote (50651)	6/17/2004 4:41:22 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793964

Iran is behind the insurrection in iraq according to john loftus. They are working with al quaeda for joint benefit--perhaps tying us up gives them a bigger chance to slip the nukes thru and for al quaeda a chance to disrupt the new iraqi regime legitamacy. Are we being snookered by the mullahs? What would happen if we attacked their nuke facilities? How loyal is the army there? What do the highly nationalistic students do--support their country or use the opp to get their freedom from them?? I dont have any of the answers. Anyone here have a better handle on iran? mike