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: re3 who wrote (154561)	3/21/2003 10:55:00 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

retired, don't you think these same people would be protesting 1) even if the UN voted to authorize force; 2) even if Saddam were now firing chemical weapons on Kuwait, the Kurds, US troops, or anyone else; or 3) even if Bush produced a conclusive, direct link between Saddam and 9/11? Remember, there WERE protests against the first Gulf War, even though the UN DID authorize force. And remember, that was "all about oil", too, according to the last "Bush is evil" protest crowd. There were also protests over Afghanistan, even though we DID show a direct link between al Queda and 9/11 AND between the Taliban and al Queda. Protestors in Beijing have nothing to do with this - they were peacefully protesting for their own freedom and were attacked by an authoritarian regime for doing so. If GST were defending Iraqis protesting against Saddam, Beijing might be relevant. These people are protesting in favor of a totalitarian regime of mass murderers. They are, at best, misguided and foolish. But then, they do have the right to be misguided and foolish - as long as they do it peacefully.