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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (146666)	9/3/2002 1:02:00 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Liz: Every effort was made to connect Iraq to Sept. 11th -- but no connection has been made -- there probably is nothing to connect Iraq to September 11. My point here is simple: If we invade Iraq without any allies it will be more risky and costly than if we have a broad coalition supporting us. Building a coalition is a political process for which Bush Jr. has shown no aptitude. Dick Cheney has carried the diplomatic effort and he has been completely ineffective. Colin Powell does not think we should invade Iraq at all. Bush is not even confident enough to take this to Congress -- although it is hard to see how he can avoid doing that if he is serious about military action. The rest of the world wants us to take it to the UN Security Council -- and you can be sure that the UN S.C. will never authorize a US invasion of Iraq. On the SI debate you have, on the one hand, Bill, who thinks we are doing a great job lining up international support for our "regime change" policy, despite the fact that nobody supports our policy and most have told us so in no uncertain terms. On the other hand there is Victor, who thinks the Europeans are panzies and the rest of the world is irrelevant. He thinks we should just invade and to hell with what anybody thinks about it. There it is -- a truly stupid debate.