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: RetiredNow who wrote (243554)	7/27/2005 6:34:22 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575175

MM, personally I guess its more about not leaving out any options when informing those states up front about what could happen if and so forth. Actually I always believed the US did a lousy job in trying to make it very clear to Japan what could happen if they did not capitulate on the spot. Shipping of a film to Hirohito and his generals showing the first nuke explosion in Nevada could have eliminated the alleged necessity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Taro On Tancredo got this comment from my buddy Bob: Anyone wanting to register an opinion to the Council on American-Islamic Relations can send email to cair@cair-net.org My own message to them makes it clear that I back Tancredo's thinking. THEY (Islamic countries) are the ones in the best position to put a stop to Islamic terrorism. If they choose to take little or no action, they can expect the same kind of determined response the Japanese got when they bombed Pearl Harbor. We are among the most peaceful and constructive people on Earth, but when you attack the US violently, you cannot expect the sensible among us to stick our collective head in the sand. Mecca may have to be erased if a WMD terrorist attack happens on US soil. And if our population gets REALLY angry, that might be only the beginning.