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 (153480)	2/22/2003 8:47:23 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164687

A General is the highest rank for a career military officer. A General is an expert at conducting war. A General does not make decisions about whether or not war will be fought -- that decision and other relevant policy decisions are left in the hands of policy makers, including elected officials like the President and appointed bureaucrats such as the Secretary of Defense. Neither the President nor the Secretary of State are experts on the conduct of war -- that is why they employ Generals. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush would have any of the qualifications to be confirmed as a General -- they do not have the professional qualifications for the job. They are both unqualified to serve as Generals. That is not their job. If a General was elected President -- it would still not be his job to play General. In this case, there is no issue.