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: Oeconomicus who wrote (148964)	10/19/2002 9:59:09 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

"THE OTHER DAY, a group of Americans gathered together to deliberate the wisdom of a war with Iraq. D. started it off with harsh words for President Bush, arguing that he just wants a war to distract the nation from other ills: ''Face it America, [Bush] is nuts, and is as dangerous as any outside terrorist we could possibly face.'' K. fired some harsh invective back. ''You moron Hussein butt kissers are proving the fools that you are,'' a retort that E. parried with ''Will you imbecilic right-wing armchair commandos ever tire of calling anyone a `Saddam lover'?'' L. ignored the two prior debaters, looked straight at D., and let it rip. ''You're a moron. I won't even begin to point out all the twisted logic in your [comment].'' But D. had an immediate rejoinder to that: ''Thanks! Coming from you, I'll accept that as a compliment.'' If possible, the discussion disintegrated further. Everyone talked past, around, and through each other. No one, presumably, left knowing anything more about Iraq. Of course, this conversation didn't occur at a university round table or in Harvard Square over tea and scones. It took place on the Yahoo! political discussion message board. The potshots above represent just a small sample of the discussion on an early October evening. But many of the 125,000 comments about the war posted in increasing numbers over the last 12 months display the same unedifying, sophomoric tone. And the problem goes well beyond big sites like Yahoo! Just three years ago, Internet chat and political discussion boards were supposed to help usher in an electron-based Jeffersonian idyll, ''delivering democracy to your desktop, '' as the logo of the prominent and well-funded site voter.com proclaimed. Venture capitalists tossed around sacks of money and some of the brightest minds in politics, such as Carl Bernstein and Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, joined online projects aimed at helping the masses deliberate on political issues and hold their leaders accountable - for example, by making it easier to contact your representative." boston.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (148964)	10/20/2002 10:48:51 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The US never overstepped the authority of the UN -- that is why we did not go after Saddam. That is why we did not invade Iraq. And that is why Saddam is still in power. To invade Iraq and go after Saddam would have been an illegal declaration of war by the US, and it was more or less unanimously agreed that a unilateral and illegal declaration of war was a very, very bad idea. You are simply not informed if you think otherwise. The US now wants the UN to authorize an invasion of Iraq -- and the UN is unlikely to do so. This is not so complicated Bob.