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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (154564)	3/21/2003 2:08:14 PM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

i do not condone saddam using chemical weapons on the kurds, but i am get irritated when i hear the propaganda, "Saddam killed his own people" [in reference to the Kurds]. IT IS A CIVIL WAR!!! hell, then abraham lincoln "killed his own people" too!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (154564)	3/21/2003 2:28:24 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Lizzie, sorry, but the fact that Saddam has not (yet) used chemical or bio-weapons in no way supports the conclusion that he has none. If you've been paying attention, then you've surely heard that his using them would bring France into the war on our side, along with others surely, and would destroy any chance he has for survival. His strategy, most observers agree, is to hope for (or create) massive destruction and civilian casualties in hope that public sentiment in the US and pressure from his friends in Europe would force Bush to stop short of complete defeat of his regime (like Bush 41 did). If he uses them at all (assuming he is even still calling the shots), it will likely be once allied forces have advanced much closer to Baghdad. Using them would either be a desperation move or an attempt to paint an ugly picture of civilian deaths that he would hope to blame on or at least break the will of Bush. As for "breaking up OPEC" as the motive for the war, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "Bill Kristal says so." First of all, I doubt he said it was motive, though he might think it a side benefit. Second of all, there is no reason to think that a free Iraq would have any less interest in maximizing profits from oil. Plenty of nations friendly with the US are members of OPEC. That said, do you think it would be a bad thing if OPEC was weakened? As a side benefit?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (154564)	3/21/2003 6:30:46 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

<< ... but now that I see absolutely no evidence of chemical weapons or WMDs >> You differ with Hans Blix. Besides, instead of rushing to judgement, woudln't it be more prudent to wait and see what is uncoverd in the weeks and months ahead ? Let the 280,000 British and US inspectors do their job. Let's not rush to vindicate Saddam !

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (154564)	3/21/2003 9:36:39 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

You rush to judgement. Here are your surrendurs, Lizzie. And it's just the start. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendered Friday in the face of the allied assault, including Iraq’s entire 51st Infantry Division, numbering 8,000 soldiers. The mechanized division was said to have had about 200 tanks before the war. An American official said the soldiers were fighting with small arms, pistols, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The New York Times reported earlier Friday that the commander of Iraq’s 51st division and his top deputy surrendered to U.S. Marine forces, according to U.S. military officials. The division was assigned to defend Basra. One group of Iraqi soldiers alongside a road waved a white flag and their raised hands, trying to flag down a group of journalists so they could surrender. In the town of Safwan, Iraqi civilians eagerly greeted the 1st Marine Division. One little boy, who had chocolate melted all over his face after a soldier gave him some treats from his ration kit, kept pointing at the sky, saying “Ameriki, Ameriki.” Meeting a key objective, U.S. Marines took full control of the strategic port of Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. “Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the U.S. Marines and now is in coalition hands,” Boyce said. The port, located along the Kuwaiti border about 290 miles southeast of Baghdad, would give U.S. and British forces access to a port for military and humanitarian supplies and speed the clearing of Iraqi resistance in the south once minesweepers finished clearing a safe sea route. The ground attack on Umm Qasr followed a night of intense shelling by U.S. and British forces in the area. Australian forces intercepted an Iraqi patrol boat filled with about 60 sea mines and other military equipment in the area of Khawr Abd Allah, a stretch of water in the approach to Umm Qasr, Australian officials said. British officials also said the oil infrastructure at Umm Qasr was not destroyed by Iraqi troops. msnbc.com