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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (246600)	10/25/2007 10:38:42 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Because you hate bush, you have concluded that everything this govt is for you are against. I understand that bush has failed but the US has legit interests and the SUN-ny picture you have been painting about iran is as unrealistic as the one the bush admin paints. That was my point when i was arguing with the arrogant petulant child (Suntzu) earlier in the week.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (246600)	10/25/2007 10:51:12 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine premised her argument with ... Iran doing something 'untoward' and using missiles to pull it off. Untoward can only be interpreted as using the threat of missile attacks to do or get away with something awful ... at least in this context, so why would you resond 'good for them'??? I may have misunderstood your response but I don't see much difference in that and cheering on Tim McVey and the like. Basic national security and defense systems would be a different thing all together. "created to be a deterrent against the west intevening in something untoward that iran might be doing" Best regards, gem