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: Alomex who wrote (147308)	9/11/2002 8:40:41 PM
From: fedhead	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Of course the war against Iraq will be seen as bieng good for the stock market, just like the 1990 war preceded the 90's bull market. I heard some nonsense in CNBC about how absense of attacks on 9/11 could lead to a humongous rally. Which is why the bear has a long way to go ? Capitulation, we are not even close. Anindo

To: Alomex who wrote (147308)	9/12/2002 10:32:03 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Red herring? Decent mag if you don't follow their investment picks. But I've never had it, either pickled (the fish, not me) or smoked. Wonder what craig would conclude from that. ;-) Seriously, I respect Mandela as a man of principal and a man of peace. But I do think he's got it wrong on Iraq and does have a bit of a double standard. He criticizes the US for past behavior where we meddled (he didn't use the word, but that's essentially how he described it) in other countries affairs, then criticizes Cheney for not supporting official US government pressure on the government of SA to release him AND recognize the ANC, which the government of SA considered to be an organized revolutionary force seeking to overthrow the government, as the OFFICIAL representative of the black majority. Whether you agree or disagree with the former SA government's view, or whether the ANC, once they prevailed, turned out to be democratic, non-racist and fair in formation of a new government, it is silly to suggest that the resolution was not meddling, especially when you consider that serious economic sanctions to force a change of the government in SA was the ultimate goal of most of Congress - more so than the freedom of one man. The difference between South Africa and Iraq is that SA was run by rational people who simply feared giving up power to majority control because, rightly or wrongly, they feared for their lives and their property. Sanctions and persuasion worked on them. Had they not, then eventually they would have been overthrown by force and most of the same people who supported sanctions would have also said we should support that overthrow, even though the SA government was never argued to be a threat to the American people or our allies. Sanctions and persuasion have not worked on Saddam; he IS a threat; and we can't just leave him be. Bob PS: You might like this - unitedmedia.com