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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (618762)	9/6/2004 2:03:14 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Why has no one from the US gov't not DIRECTLY addressed these claims POINT BY POINT to put these questions to rest? If this is true, does this not dwarf all other potential problems facing Americans and the world by comparison? This is either just more complete manipulation by conspiracy nuts, or it makes the current Administration and even the entire gov't, FBI, CIA, etc. etc. etc. very scary indeed. What is going on here? All this to manipulate a position for an oil grab? The world economy must be hanging on by LESS than a thread. ANY 100% pro-US gov't/Bush supporters want to debunk everything in this film? I'd love to hear it. The film does not address what happened to the plane if it did not hit the Pentagon? Has anyone seen reports of specific lists of who was on EACH plane? Has any reporter gone around and checked out EVERY family to see their stories and where/how/when their family members deaths were documented and then put a report together? As "convincing" as the little film is, it does seem impossible that if true, there would not be tons of people talking -- family members, firemen, investigators, airline people, traffic controllers, people on the highway, etc, etc, etc. You can't shut everyone up, right? OR, is it like other "conspiracies" that simply go away because everyone says, the same thing -- "If that were true you'd be hearing about it on the news somewhere. Do you think ALL reporters would cover up that? You must be nuts!" I remain, SOROS , , . pages.infinit.net

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (618762)	9/6/2004 2:18:41 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You wrote: She is at liberty to trade with faulty nations, to even give them weapons So if we traded weapons to, say, Israel, that would give countries that consider themselves at risk from Israel reason to attack her? Or even us? Or, is the 'fault removing' limited only to the US? Preemption is a slippery slope. We may not consider Israel a threat to her neighbors, but certainly at least some of her neighbors do (for example, Iran, having seen the Israeli 'preemption' on Iraq's nuclear program years ago). Who is to judge a threat, and have the right to preemptively respond against it? If we had taken our battle against Iraq to a UN resolution, calling for force as a result of their refusal to fully verify their dismantling of their WMD programs, then we could have occupied some moral and potentially (internationally) legal high ground. Possibly, at that point, the standard for preemption could have been set. We did not, and as we did not find evidence of that threat which would have justified our preemption, we've set a negative precedent for preemption.