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 (149933)	11/11/2002 11:45:55 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Sorry to disagree, but from where I sit in Europe, it looks like the American public has swallowed whole the Bush administration's trigger-happy stance. It looks like the US is hell-bent on invading Iraq with no conclusive evidence of any terrorism ties or any weapons of mass destruction. Can anyone remember how we got to this point anyway? The US had attacked Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. And then one day Bush woke up and decided that Saddam is "evil" and that they should attack Iraq. What was the link? Why Iraq? Doesn't this offend anyone's sense of rationality? The truth of the matter is that Iraq is not singularly egregious in being a non-democratic country with a bad human rights record, neither is it the country with the worst WMD arsenal - not only do we not know if it has any WMDs at all, but we know of other countries that DO have those weapons. Far be it from me to defend Saddam's regime, but we have to admit that he has not been implicated in any hostile act, terrorist or otherwise, over the past decade. Containment has worked. There is no justifiable reason to attack this country. Iraq is going to be attacked because Iraq has oil. It is that simple.