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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (188534)	6/6/2006 10:29:30 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

I'm exceptionally pleased to see that you're using html bolding vs. the ALL CAPS. It makes your position[s] all the more compelling. I fully expect that the next round of polling will show significant increases in the public's support for the war in Iraq. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (188534)	6/6/2006 10:45:43 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I dont see where you re going with this. Bin Laden would have fought alongside the saudis if the US hadnt intervened in the gulf war and saddam kept moving. Bin Laden also would have allied with them whereever their interests converged. OTOH of course saddam wanted wmds and he probably was happy when the WTC went down but that doesnt make him invlolved in the attack. Iraq is now going to hell in a handbasket. The final solution will be whether it breaks into two or three parts. US needs to get out of the way. In trying to help those bastards, all we do is end up making more enemies and more recruits for the militias and al quaeda. Look at the news from somalia today. We backed the warlords--yes the same warlords who were involved in that horrible incident a decade ago. The islamists won there too. Our strategy(ies) are not working. This admin has not wisdom.