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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (120634)	6/17/2005 4:55:07 PM
From: Bernard Guerrero	Respond to of 793914

Eh, close, but no. "a) America is virulently and violently anti-Iraq in both rhetoric and action." Quite possibly true, but immaterial from my POV. I'm not Iraqi. "b) America has massive military potential with regards to Iraqi interests on the basis of population, free cash flow and geography." Rather understates the case, given that the U.S. has quite a few other factors going for it in the "military potential" category. But this is a positive from my POV. See a) above. "c) America is capable, on a technical and resource basis (see aforementioned cash flow and reserves) of developing additional WMD on a less than geological time-scale, and had demonstrated proclivities in that direction previously." True, but trivial. The U.S. has had WMD since WW1. (Again, a plus from my POV given that I'm an American. YMMV, but who cares about your M either?) "d) Given 9/11, we were quite aware that other virulently anti-Iraqi groups might be happy to use such a device against Iraq directly even if America proved to be reluctant. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"." Actually pretty unlikely. The only virulently anti-Iraqi group we might have given WMD to would be Israel, and they've already got their own stash. But the sentiment is in the right place. :^) "e) Pressure is building from intimidated nations to lower the level of pressure on America in the near term, blithely ignoring (or simply not caring about) a) through d)." Actually quite wrong. Pressure on the U.S. was building. Which shows the innate silliness of trying to take a series of points and switching them around nearly verbatim, as you've attempted to do, since you're bound to screw up details. As you've done. "f) America needed to be wiped off the map, post-haste" From a Ba'athist POV? Quite possibly. Which only reinforces the idea that we needed to flatten them. :^) Keep your silly moralism and equivalencies to yourself. That which works in my favor is "good", that which seeks to harm me and mine is "bad". Splash, over. Splash, out. Think local, act global