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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (76169)	8/9/2006 11:42:07 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362348

I agree completely with you TP...........I said that on 9/11 over on the Bush thread and you can imagine the reaction I got. I still believe the bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen but didn't think it would be as bad as it turned out.they thought it would be a hijacking and lose a few expendable middleclass Americans.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (76169)	8/10/2006 10:49:02 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362348

Afganistan is the perfect place to build a regional military hub to control Central Asian oil supplies that are growing in importance every year. I don't think it is a mistake or an unecessary burden for the U.S./Britian to invade and occupy Afganistan. No military presence in Central Asia means no influence over the regional governments and oil supplies. We go where the oil is. We are also participating in a quiet civil war in Columbia in an effort to keep some kind of lid on S. American oil supplies. The Columbian civil war and our involvement gets very little attention. The U.S. Oil Protection Service formerly known as the U.S. Military