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.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bo Bob Brain who wrote (12808)	2/14/1998 6:42:00 PM
From: drmorgan	Respond to of 22053

Looks like we will go through the same thing every few years The job in the Persian Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait, which the Allied forces did. But I knew full well we would be back dealing with the nut case. If we do air strikes now how long before we are back doing it again? This is very costly business in terms of life and money. As a taxpayer who is funding this I'm fed up with it! One of the only things that come out of these air strikes is a testing ground for advanced weapons. The problem is that we are dealing with human life here not scorpions in a remote desert. I have to think that the only solution, either now or later by Israel, is a full scale invasion of the country. How it can be done with limited loss of life I don't know and it really bothers me to think that war is the solution. Would it be possible to invade Iraq with troops and eliminate Hussein and install some sane leadership? I feel that if we don't take extremely drastic action that ultimately Israel will and they will not use ground forces, they will bomb to destroy Iraq and that means a horrible loss of life for innocent people. If not for our dependence on oil we would let the Arab nations kill themselves and not get involved. As long as we have cheap oil coming from that region we will certainly have a military presence. I remember the '70's oil crisis and I thought back then that we would have alternatives in the future and certainly by 2000. Not much motivation with oil as cheap as it is. I think the technology exists for alternatives but the cost and political reasons will keep a lid on it until we are forced to deal with it. Derek

To: Bo Bob Brain who wrote (12808)	2/14/1998 6:52:00 PM
From: Scrapps	Respond to of 22053

I say we vote on it..... BB Brain said: "We are now getting ready to bomb a nation not knowing where the chemical weapons are or if they are eventually destroyed, and not removing its dictator. American and Israeli lives will be in danger." Yes since the military hasn't a clue on where these weapons are...says BB Brain. Then we should vote on what targets we want to bomb. The vote would be by 900 phone numbers and cost one dollar per vote for each vote for weapons targets. And five dollars per vote for each vote for dictator targets. Vote as many times as you like. And all money will pay for the attack. HOWEVER, if we fail to hit anything we're after...all the money goes to Israel so they can do it. This could be one of the cheapest kick ass methods ever devised since mass killing was invented. And...as BB Brain says, we are going to stop all foreign aid. Which means we don't have to pay to rebuild the place or take care of those "tens of thousands of children" we maim. The savings will be even greater. Now wait there's more! We can sell ad space on the sides and belly of the cruise missiles. It might say... "Intel inside with other stuff". OR.. "Chevy Trucks...Like Iraq, ooh oh like Iraq." OR... "For a good time call 555-boom." And on top of all those great benefits...we get to test and perfect our new weapon systems. God isn't war great? As the great Arlo Guthery once said in Alice's restaurant, "I want to eat dead burnt bodies and have veins and things stuck between my teeth"!

To: Bo Bob Brain who wrote (12808)	2/14/1998 8:35:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

>>For some stupid reason we did not get rid of Hussein at that time. At the time, there was raging controversy in the public, the media, and in Congress as to whether or not our national interests were at stake, and whether our defense forces should have been placed at risk of injury or death in the then dubious goal of liberating Kuwait. Bush was forced to isolate the goal freeing Kuwait in order to received a mandate from the people and Congress, as well as to receive the support of the Arab members of the coalition. After having accomplished the goal, there would have been public outrage had he gone back on his word, not to mention the international political damage that would have resulted by betraying the trust of the Arab partners. Now that the world has had plenty of time to observe the thug Saddam in action, they're all for eliminating him. Hindsight, as always, is 20-20.