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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (108407)	7/16/2007 1:08:50 AM
From: kikogrey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

If the risk of inaction means that there's a 1% of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons getting into the hands of someone that could kill 100s of thousands of Americans, that 1% is not acceptable. Well by this logic, why didn't we invade Pakistan first since they have nukes and are hiding al qaeda?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (108407)	7/16/2007 1:18:50 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>If the risk of inaction means that there's a 1% of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons getting into the hands of someone that could kill 100s of thousands of Americans, that 1% is not acceptable. << if invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses increases (many fold, imho) the odds of biological, chemnical or nuclear weapons getting into the hands of someone that could kill 100s of thousands of Americans, that 1% starts to sound pretty darn good compared to 2, 3, 4 or 5%. i have news for you - freedom means people are free to do harm to you. the only way that they wouldn't be free to do harm to you is to have a police state lock down like the world has never seen to date. then the rulers of the police state would do harm to you. safety is a ruse by folks who would like to remove your freedoms and liberties for their personal gain.