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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (146244)	8/26/2002 5:32:28 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

latimes.com

To: GST who wrote (146244)	8/26/2002 6:20:53 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 164685

DeLay is right. Bush doesn't answer to the UN - he answers to us. That said, good relations with other countries are important to most Americans, for lots of very good reasons, and Americans would be more supportive of Bush's efforts if he were to persuade more of us and more of our allies that military action is the proper course. Personally, unlike you, I don't distrust Bush's motives, but support from our allies would go a long way in convincing me his case is thorough and sound. A Security Council resolution is the ultimate statement (or second only to the full UN) of international support. That would be great, but may not be possible under any circumstances short of Iraq "firing the first shot". Support will never be unanimous, either in the Security Council, in the region, in Europe, in Asia or in the World - too many have a stake in the status quo or simply want to use resentment of US power and influence for their own political ends in their own countries. A broad coalition of allies based on a strong case against Hussein should do. Then we need to execute a good plan, and must not let politics (domestic or international) cause us to send Americans into harms way with one hand tied behind their backs.