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: GST who wrote (154421)	3/18/2003 11:18:03 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I hear that starbucks is doing a bangup business from all the youthful idealistic protesters. What be better than trying to relive the sixties with contemporary starbucks readily at hand?

To: GST who wrote (154421)	3/19/2003 12:00:46 AM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>idealism What idealism? That despotism is wonderful and torture is a good tool? That the world should roll over when threatened?

To: GST who wrote (154421)	3/19/2003 1:45:51 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The Windbags of War by Gene Callahan March 19, 2003 Initiating war is a particularly stupid form of human activity, and the onset of the war that will start tonight at 8 pm is bringing out the dunce in many. I'm not sure if these will alleviate or increase your depression at the thought of war, but here are a few choice ideas circulating right now: One well-known libertarian sent out an e-mail saying, "As our men go off to war, the time for criticism ends." Well, there you have it. It's one thing to criticize a mugger before he takes your wallet, but, once he's in the act, it would be impolite to continue. And if you had known about the terrorist plot of September 11th, it would have been fine to try and talk the terrorists out of it while they were in the planning stages. But once they had actually hijacked the planes, it would be quite gauche to keep badgering them. I've read several people asserting that the ease with which the US and its minions will win the war will "shut up" those who worked for peace. The moral principle involved seems to be that no action can be wrong if it is successful. By this criterion, Germany was fully justified in invading Poland in 1939, since it won so quickly. Barroom bullies are vindicated as long as they beat the fellow they picked on with little fuss. I saw a TV report that one UK official claimed that if not for France's intransigence, war could have been prevented. So, it's not the countries that are advocating war and massing troops around Iraq that are responsible, it's a country resisting the push to war. I suppose that makes sense: Imagine three men who have met a woman alone in a dark alley. Two of them threaten to rape her, but one refuses to cooperate. The two aggressors tell the third man, "It's your fault that we have to rape her. If only we had presented a united front, she would have given up hope and submitted voluntarily." Also on TV was Bush saying that the US did nothing to provoke Iraq's aggression. Um, what aggression? Does he mean the way Iraq's land has kept blowing up US bombs over the last decade? Or maybe the way Iraqi children have continually tried to embarrass the US by up and starving to death? _____________________________________________ Gene Callahan, the author of Economics for Real People, is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a contributing columnist to LewRockwell.com. Copyright © 2003 Gene Callahan lewrockwell.com