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: Logain Ablar who wrote (155878)	4/16/2003 2:01:27 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 164684

well, all I can say is, the Bush wh knew that a pre-emptive strike was controversial, and they did it anyway. A lot of people - A LOT - are really disturbed by the US in a pre-emptive strike. I am one of those people, as are almost every woman I know. The reason the approach was accepted by many, many people on the fence about this, was the WMDs. This was the justification. When you say a country is developing WMDs, you need a large facility or some real definitive proof. On this basis, (large smoking gun) the WH hasn't delivered. I'm not interested in onesy twosy terrorists living in Iraq. We already know this, after all Baghdad is the cradle of arab civilization. Finding a terrorist there is no justification for blowing the government away. My guess is there will always be onesy twosy terrorists there even if the US is running the govt. Kindof like SF getting a conservative governor and trying to rout out all the liberals. Before we attack another country I need to see some justification for the HUGE effort we just underwent. Thousands of people were killed over WMDs. When the WH produces a major WMD site then maybe harboring terrorists might be relevant for me. It isn't now, as far as I'm concerned.