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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (218409)	2/9/2005 8:24:50 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574982

Well, judging from your opposition to our proactive dealings with Iraq and now Iran, I assume you would be absolutely against a nuclear strike. You see, this is how it would happen. A nuke goes off in New York or Los Angeles. We have a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking the detonation to a group of terrorists, whom we believe were funded by and received logistical support from Iran. However, there is no smoking gun. There never is in the intelligence business. Usually, conclusions are probabilistic based on the amount of evidence and the quality of the sources. But smoking guns only come along once in a hundred years. So based on that intelligence, Bush may decide we need to retaliate against Iran, but you would be against that. So if you had your way, we would do nothing, but maybe impose economic sanctions. Then the next thing we know another bomb goes off in another American city. Why? Because we let them get away with the first one. Nope. I don't like your world at all. I'd prefer to be aggressive and proactive as hell to ensure Iran never acquires a weapon. Then we may be wrong, but at least we can reduce the probability of a nuke strike on a U.S. to near zero. As a citizen of the U.S., I expect my President to protect my family and my fellow citizens as his first priority.