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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77397)	6/22/2006 2:34:06 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Iran does not have an atom bomb, North Korea does. And saddam didn't even have a nuclear program. Bush attacked the one with the least amount of WMD, but the easiest to conquer quickly. But no plan once we invaded. None at all.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77397)	6/22/2006 12:01:51 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

>>Considering that every move that wins approval is ineffective, that doesn't reassure me too much. Is it more important to get European approval than to actually do something about Iran getting a nuclear bomb?<< Nadine - That's changing the subject, and it's also wrong. Was invading Afghanistan ineffective? No. Getting involved in another war before Afghanistan had been stabilized was, but the original invasion made sense. But here's a question for you: why do you say the current approach to Iran is ineffective? Because there's no invasion involved? How do you know this approach won't work? - Allen

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77397)	6/22/2006 12:10:31 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Bush is an anti-diplomat. He has alienated the world and failed to represent the US's interests. In fact he's represented Saudi Arabian interests more than ours. Bush also threw away all that huge post 9-11 goodwill. Even Iran was willing to embrace us and help us then. But Bush threw it all away to dishonestly and incompetently invade and occupy Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 9-11 and had no WMD, but did have a lot of oil for Bush's buddies to steal.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77397)	6/22/2006 12:24:52 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 81568

Is it more important to get European approval than to actually do something about Iran... Like what? Invade Iran? Not possible. Not with Dumbya F-ing up his Iraq experiment so badly. Airstrikes on Iran? Possible. But many people have said that airstrikes would be ineffective. The only thing that they might do is to send oil prices to $100+ and maybe kill several thousand innocent Iranians. The problem with you regressives is that you are like the idiot with the hammer in his hand. To such a person, everything looks like a nail.