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 (155491)	4/7/2003 2:28:13 PM
From: BGR	Respond to of 164684

I do not think that it is a serious process violation, going by past examples. I gave the Johnson example, and there are others.

To: GST who wrote (155491)	4/7/2003 6:07:01 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Rumsfeld has been the strongest possible advcate for the the use of special operations forces and tactics in this action, as opposed to the massive army/overwhelming force approach favored by Powell. And Rumsfeld won out. IMO the maximized use of spec ops has minimized the poss number of casualties, esp civilian ones. It has made targeting of bombs more precise, and has enabled the Coalition to spare much of the infrasctructure, incl the power and water systems. It has also made the war go quicker.