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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (10394)	7/27/2006 12:23:39 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

We folks think before we post. "you folks say that they would use WMDs regardless of the consequences because they are fanatics?" When have I ever written that? When have I even re-posted that? "So why talk about what advantages would accrue to Hezbollah or Syria or Iran or whoever else?" That is because polite debate involves a reciprocal exchange of ideas. The question was a logical follow up to your assertions. You response invites the suggestion you are a troll. "If they had WMDs, they would at least threaten to use it." Asked and answered. "I would say that if the Shia and the Sunni both had WMDs (and Israel already has them), ME would be a much more stable place even though the low-intensity conflicts would continue." Then you and I disagree. Isn't it a minor miracle that no one pushed the nuclear button up to this point in time? Why increase the risk. I guess in one way you are correct. If everyone had WMDs the planet might be a pristine place in a few millenniums after the toxic mess created in the annihilation of human life on earth went through biological breakdown. PS - In case you find learning the rules before posting too time consuming, if you refer to respected persons in this fashion you will find yourself on the ban list. Message 22662905