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 (148918)	10/18/2002 3:30:24 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

There was never an invasion of Iraq. Once Saddam retreated we could not invade because the UN would not permit it under its authority. That is why Swartzkoff stopped at the border. He was interviewed for the thousanth time on this issue a couple of weeks ago and again, as he always does, he stated that there was no choice but to stop at the border. It was not a right or wrong choice -- there was no choice to make unless the US wanted to go it alone and declare war on Iraq -- for which there is no legal basis. There is no legal basis now. If the US invades Iraq it is breaking with "international law" unless it can get a UN resolution -- and there is almost no chance the UN will sanction an invasion because of the way we framed the invasion as part of our policy of "regime change". Why do you discuss this when you don't know the first thing about it?