SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (155134)4/2/2003 6:20:12 PM
From: Wizard  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
>>As of this moment, I think the US could have left SH alone and we would have been the better for it, from a terrorism perspective, from a fiscal perspective and from a global PR perspective.

ftp://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/pub/almanac/clipart/dac20021.tif



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155134)4/2/2003 6:29:32 PM
From: Wizard  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 164684
 
Lizzie, and then what about North Korea. And what about the message it would have sent around the globe that you can defy 17 UN security resolutions and there is no penalty for it. You can fund terrorism in Palestine and stick your finger in the eye of the international community and nobody will do anything. You can repress and starve your people while you build lavish mosques and palaces as tributes to yourself. Who cares anyway?



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155134)4/2/2003 8:00:20 PM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
' Global pr' in 1938 would have dictated leaving hitler alone. After all, france was fine with him. France thought hitler was keen. oh how the euros frowned on the US for our ' aggression ' .. Joe Kennedy was square against any intervention against hitler.. but the euros loved the Marshall Plan though. Which you have no recall on either.

A little history never hurts..