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: Lane3 who wrote (147254)	11/16/2005 3:18:07 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793866

LOL... read the arguments. In fact the reality of how effectively the military took Iraq with few civilian casualties show one retired Marine colonel totally out of touch with the realities of American tech and thus even more ignorant of Iraq tech. Still waiting for a credible public figure and not agenda driven politicians and ignorant formers. "The Army is too "heavy" to get there short of a Desert Storm-style buildup. Air power and advanced technology get you little in the fight to conquer cities. How many Iraqi citizens do you plan to kill in order to bestow democracy? " How many more imaginary people will you try to invent?

To: Lane3 who wrote (147254)	11/16/2005 8:12:08 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793866

Wonder how many have to die before "mass destruction" becomes a problem? 1,000? --2,000?? ---3,000? 5,000? --How many? The planes the 9-11 murdering barbarians killed about 3,000, and injured thousands more, plus sent our damaged economy into a much bigger decline.... Saddam killed 5,000+ Kurds with gas.... Was that not "mass" enough?? Per the Williams the article quoted: Chemical and biological weapons, Williams argues, are not weapons of mass destruction. "They are very inefficient and unpredictable and hard to use effectively. Casualty-producing, yes, but not on a large scale."