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 (153246)	2/18/2003 10:42:13 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<So "appeasers" aren't Bush's chief problem. His slipping credibility is. It's reflected in polls that show a majority of Americans aren't keen to fight this war without more allied support than Bush has mustered. And in the huge Vietnam War-type peace protests this past weekend. A year ago Bush officials claimed Saddam was rearming. No evidence has been offered. Saddam was said to have a huge offensive arsenal. Now weapons inspectors aren't so sure. And while he may retain some chemical and biological weapons, he can't deliver them. Bush officials claimed as well that Saddam was actively aiding Al Qaeda terrorists. But they have yet to supply proof. So now Washington's hawks are trying to stir fears that Saddam might equip a terrorist with a radiological ("dirty") bomb. It's possible. But terrorists don't have to turn to Baghdad to obtain radioactive materials. No wonder millions of people, here and abroad, are skeptical. And why rush to attack? There was no rush to war in 1990-91, even after Saddam had invaded Kuwait. The U.N. waited 5 1/2 months before authorizing a counterattack. Saddam poses no such threat today. He heads a weak, bottled-up regime and a shattered military.>> torontostar.com

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (153246)	2/18/2003 10:54:38 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<If America concludes from its diplomatic soundings that it will not be able to get a second resolution of its liking passed by the council, it may drop the idea and simply continue making its war plans. Mr Bush has said he is prepared to lead a “coalition of the willing” against Iraq if the UN will not act. The peace protests have shown that there is massive international opposition to a war, especially one not supported by the UN. Yet, while it is not yet impossible that America will be persuaded to postpone military action, it does not look at all likely.>> economist.com