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 (149176)	10/24/2002 10:29:23 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Is it Bob or Boob? Cheney pissed away our choices when he committed us to "regime change by invasion". We can't be seen to be bluffing or we lose all credibility so we must attack alone if we can't strongarm the UN Security Council. The UN obviously does not want to rubber stamp a US invasion -- something extremely vague is the most they would do, and that would be done while they hold their noses to avoid the stench of the UN rotting its way into oblivion as a meaningful international institution. The UN loses all credibility if they sign off on Cheney's mission. Either way, this mission has a cloud over it and the cloud grows day-by-day. Sure, we can go to war alone. But whatever moral authority we ever had is all but gone. We might be feared. But we are no longer to be respected.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (149176)	10/24/2002 10:45:16 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

These "experts" don't support your views at all: <...14 defense experts saw a significant or moderate risk that conflict could spread to other oil producing countries in the region through external attack or internal revolt. Most analysts also saw a significant or very significant risk of an Iraqi conflict spurring terror attacks on the United States and its allies, although some said the link would be tenuous. "An attack will fuel anti-Americanism in the Arab-Islamic world, but it will be hard to directly link terrorist incidents with hatred created by (the military) attack," said Jeremy Binnie at Jane's Information Group in London. Ten of the analysts thought Saddam was likely or very likely to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies in a conflict. Analysts were split on how much the United States would rely on internal Iraqi opposition in any military campaign. The main opponents of Saddam's rule are either outside Iraq or in a Kurdish enclave in the north outside his control. AFTERMATH Five said the main action in any conflict would last up to a month and 13 between one and three months, albeit with some residual fighting likely for some time afterwards. Three thought the main conflict would last up to six months and one predicted a war lasting more than six months. Hassan Abou Taleb at the Al-Ahram Foundation in Cairo predicted a U.S. invasion would meet widespread resistance among Iraq's 22 million people, independent of Saddam Hussein. He said the most likely outcome was "chaos in Iraq under invasion...another model of the Vietnam war." Sixteen of the analysts thought U.S. troops would still be in Iraq more than a year after the main conflict. Most were doubtful that a U.S.-led invasion would enable the creation of a broad-based, representative democracy in Iraq -- the stated goal of the Bush administration.>