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: Bill Harmond who wrote (147002)	9/5/2002 4:32:19 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Bill, I think he's saying it's wrong to go after a bad actor unless you go after all the bad actors. Either that or it's OK to go after one unless there's an appearance that we might be doing it just to seize oil. But, of course, we never take any action unless we can get some oil out of it, so maybe he's saying we're the bad actors. Or did he have some other point altogether? Sheesh! All these points, and yet none.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (147002)	9/5/2002 4:34:10 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

The US is not out to save the world. The US is a country with national interests that sometimes does things we have no reason to be proud of for practical reasons. The world will ask us to explain why we are in such danger that we must invade Iraq and kill its leader. I trust that Bush will have a point to make. He might say that we cannot accept a hostile nation with nuclear capability in the oil patch. The world would understand this. But he will not likely do that. He will likely use a tone of extreme moral superiority and claim that we must liberate Iraqis from this tyrant. Nobody will believe that outside the US Bill. That is why they are lining up behind the German position instead of ours.