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 (146873)	9/4/2002 5:49:26 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Did we go to Serbia or not? Close call. That what I mean by your shifting the argument a few degrees. That's BS. Iraq was a close call in 1991, too.

To: GST who wrote (146873)	9/4/2002 10:57:05 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

...the Republicans repeatedly said we should not go into Serbia because there was "no compelling US national interest" to be served -- there was no oil. A less cynical person might have said that the Republican's opposed it because they believed "there was no compelling US national interest to be served -- Serbia was not supporting terrorists or developing weapons of mass destruction to threaten the United States." But, of course, you are all-knowing and you say everything the Republicans do or propose, or every decision to oppose something, is driven by lust for oil. Can't argue with logic like that. BTW, we didn't "stand by" - we tried to end the "brutal civil war" in Somalia. Did we do that for oil or was that another case of Republicans opposing it because it wouldn't gain us any oil? Were we right to try or were opponents right that we shouldn't? How did oil play into that one? Help me understand, 'cause I just don't see it. Perhaps I'm blinded by greed - Republican oil greed.