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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (9185)	4/11/2006 7:27:49 PM
From: Sawdusty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37252

Personally, I don't see him as any more of a loose cannon than Bush, and I agree that is why they want nukes. It's the only thing that keeps the cowboy at bay, at least for now. I don't think Harper has the balls to stand up to him.......and I wish I didn't feel this way.

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (9185)	4/11/2006 8:32:19 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37252

And then wonder why they (Iranians) want nukes... how could they possibly feel threatened ? Unfortunately for the Iranians... they went and elected a real loose cannon... I watched George Bush in his press conference, he seemed rather clear. He said no one in his administration had suggested that a nuclear attack on Iran was a possibility. He said the entire debate was one that started and ended with the press. The idea is to prevent a nuclear attack, not to start one. I thought he was quite clear. What happens if this is a fabrication of the Liberal Press? George has as much conventional weapons as he needs to bomb Iran back to the Ice Age. Why would he use Nuclear weapons when in reality, should Iran get close to developing a nuclear weapon, Israel will attack them.