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 : RAMTRONIAN's Cache Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sr K who wrote (13458)	7/22/2007 10:27:24 PM
From: happygambler1934	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14464

<I think NR's point, that you call OPINION, is that we are not safer, primarily, if not solely, due to our military response to the attack of 9/11/2001.> The facts speak for themselves. Do we agree there were continuous acts of war waged against our on shore and off shore interests starting in 70's, commencing with the "act of war" 1979 siege of Iranian Embassy? If we don't agree, then you are reading from the DNC talking points playbook, and this discussion ends. I don't know anything about your list. We did NOT attack Iraq, and are not at war with Iraq. We went in to remove SH because he defied 17 UN resolutions, and he was an "imminent and growing threat"(to which all free world leaders agreed) to world safety. If you read GW's speeches emphatically stating SH was just that. In my 1998 PRESIDENT CLINTON confirmed the same, and threatened to take military action against SH-Senator John Heintz....opppps Kerry also confirmed he would take military action against SH in a Kokey Roberts/George Will TV interview in 1998. So what's all the mystery? We are in the grips of a long term international ideological war with a ruthless enemy which has totally devalued life. You may dismiss terrorism as a bumper sticker. If so send those bumper stickers to the family members and friends of the 3000 KILLED IN ACTION on Sept 11, 2001. HAP