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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (53668)	4/10/2003 11:56:05 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

I think the course that had been set and agreed upon -- UN inspections -- should have been given time to work, and that no war should have been undertaken without UN support (or _at least_ the support of our key European allies). Nobody is arguing that Saddam is a great guy, but the process by which he is eliminated is important to the future. JMHO. Charles Tutt (SM)

To: Elroy who wrote (53668)	4/10/2003 4:16:08 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Respond to of 64865

<< Don't you think that if what is going on now had gone on in the first Gulf War that Iraq would be a better place than it has been for the past 12 years?>> Colin Powell: occupying Baghdad comes at an "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." George Bush: "We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." It seems like reasonable men could disagree. Steve