SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Aggie who wrote (32076)11/24/1998 8:57:00 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 95453
 
I would vote no action. This whole weapons thing is a gigantic farce. and nothing more than an excuse to maintain sactions until a regime to our liking comes to power. As long as US ally Israel has hundreds of nukes and vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, this whole thing reeks of the grossest hypocrisy.

I would favor limited strikes only as a cover for the lifting of sanctions which have killed hundreds of throusands of civilians in Iraq -- more in fact that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



To: Aggie who wrote (32076)11/24/1998 9:50:00 AM
From: ldo79  Respond to of 95453
 
VOTE

Aggie:

Previously posted my sentiments on another thread:
Message 6426479

I stand the middle ground between limited strikes & nukes. Take him out totally, but don't contaminate.

Regards.