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: Victor Lazlo who wrote (156638)	4/27/2003 6:56:28 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

But not as disproportionately horrible as, say, under the Taliban. Or in isolated parts of Idaho. ;-)

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (156638)	4/27/2003 7:33:10 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Iraq under Saddam was better for women than a fundamentalist regime. Saddam didn't behead women for adultery for example, female children were allowed to be educated (a HUGE issue), women were allowed key positions with the gov't. Teenage girls weren't offered up as potential wives of any middle aged cleric who happened to come along. Fundamentalist regimes are far, far worse than a brutal dictator for women. If you want more information about this I suggest reading about the "fatwa" imposted in Sudan. If the US wanted to wage a humanitarian war then Sudan, as well as multiple other countries in Africa, would have been the appropriate locale. NOT iraq.