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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (635131)	9/29/2004 7:55:29 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

let's see how kerry spins this one... edwards.senate.gov If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a UN Security Council resolution was impossible.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (635131)	9/29/2004 8:00:10 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The short sighted stupidity and ignorance of not seeing the difference between now and a decade ago is mind boggling. Think of IEDs made up from the stockpiles of chemical and bilogical weapons that existed a decaded ago. Were American troops a decade ago more prepared to dead with chemical and bilogical weapons??? If it is difficult today, I's say the tech of a decade ago would have made it ten times worse. And pre 9/11 a demostration of a massive casualty event in America was not part of the threat of ragheads. Suggesting a change in position on the issue of fixing Iraq over the decade and the known history of events is anything other than reasonable is simply a idiot identification confirmation.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (635131)	9/30/2004 7:08:27 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

the war was tied to free the country saddam invaded not to capture saddam. We backed off because films from liberal press showed thousands of iraq republican guard getting slattered. and the Europeans were starting to go nuts over us winning war and freeing up the poor iraq people. We stopped as we accomplished the mission. mission accomplished! the thought also was Saddam would not remain in power , but he did. in hind site we should have gone all the way.. My opinion at the time was we accomplished what united nations agreed to do and we should stop the massacar of Iraq soliders. I also felt Saddam would not remain in power. Now we should see this through. Kill as many terrorist as possible, wipe out the old Saddam supporters and move on. It's a hell of lot better these ignorant terrorists come into Iraq and fight than shipped to US through canada or mexico to bomb us. Buddy what do you propose , cut and run?