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: Oeconomicus who wrote (157326)	5/18/2003 9:09:56 PM
From: John Chen	Respond to of 164684

R.D.Buschman,re:"Bush's plan". Bush is trapped by an organization (conspiracy). Bush's plan is used to re-oil the war machine as we are going for the next phase in the 'Bush doctrine' (nothing is really from Bush). $300 to the rich vs. to the needy would make the needy that much 'further behind' as the rich has to find some place to 'invest' (grow the $300). So the poor get at lest that much poorer ($300) and then some ( + the return).

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157326)	5/19/2003 10:09:37 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

No oil here -- just human tragedy. iht.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157326)	5/19/2003 10:11:41 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

Fallout of America's vain hunt for WMD confined to embarrassment By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 16 May 2003 The continuing failure to discover any evidence of Iraq's alleged chemical, germ and nuclear weapons, more than a month after the fall of Baghdad, is thus far a very minor embarrassment for the Bush administration – and probably one which will grow only if order collapses completely and there is an uprising against US military occupiers. Unlike Britain, complaints here at the failure to find the illegal weapons – whose existence was the main justification for war – has been mainly confined to liberal columnists and editorials in liberal newspapers. All but forgotten are the bloodcurdling pre-war assertions of top Bush officials, among them Vice-President Dick Cheney's claim that Iraq had "reconstituted" its nuclear programme, and the President's warning that Iraqi drones, launched from ships in the Atlantic, could spray US cities with biological agents. Instead the justification has shifted from the weapons threat to the humanitarian benefits of having removed a brutal regime. The worry in the US is not about the absence of a smoking WMD gun – but that Iraq will descend into anarchy. This week the US military command blamed escalating street violence not on the inability of the occupiers to guarantee basic services, but on "regime elements" made up of Baath party diehards who are sabotaging US-led efforts to restore infrastructure. The mood is plain in the polls. Yes, Mr Bush probably did overestimate the quantities of non-conventional weapons held by Saddam Hussein's regime, 49 per cent of respondents in a New York Times/ CBS poll said, compared with 29 per cent who said they were about right and 12 per cent who continue to insist – in the face of all the evidence – that they were too little. Even so, more than half thought the war will have been worth it, even if no germ, chemical and nuclear weapons are found, and Saddam himself is not captured or killed. The harrowing discovery this week of mass graves near Baghdad is unlikely to change these feelings. In short, complaints here are unlikely to become as vocal as in Britain. The difference in Britain reflects much greater support for the war in the US, from the moment Congress gave Mr Bush carte blanche to use force last November, even before United Nations weapons inspectors returned and turned up nothing. Inconveniences such as the forged documents purporting to show Iraq had bought uranium ore from Niger, and claims that intelligence analysts were forced to stretch facts to fit the theories of superiors at the White House, Pentagon and Vice-President's office, are simply brushed aside. None the less, doubts are surfacing. Officially, the Pentagon line is that Iraq is a large country and that "we never expected to find weapons quickly." But in the end they would be found. That does not square with what US investigators are being told by Iraqi scientists – who no longer have any reason to lie – that the weapons programmes were shut down several years ago. Nor does it square with what US commanders are learning for themselves. "We came to bear country, we came loaded for bear and we found out the bear wasn't here," said Colonel Richard McPhee, a member of Task Force 75, which went in with US troops to find and display the hidden WMD. Force 75 will be pulled out of Iraq next month. Privately, US officials concede the best they may come up with is evidence of a programme which once existed, such as the two facilities now being examined by US technicians, alleged to have been mobile laboratories. And unless chaos on the ground grows to the point of invalidating military victory, that may be where the weapons mystery vanishes into the desert sands. news.independent.co.uk

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157326)	5/19/2003 10:13:47 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<<America's decisiveness and resolve to fight the global "war on terrorism" was lost after the dismantlement of the Taliban regime in early 2002. No one in the current government in Washington will admit that. But the resurgence of al-Qaeda in the form of terrorist attacks on Tuesday in Riyadh provides persuasive evidence of that sad reality. After ousting the Taliban from power, the next logical step related to war on terrorism was to rebuild Afghanistan, while continuing the mop-up operations against the remnants of Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. Instead, the US became preoccupied with ousting Saddam Hussein. In the meantime, the issue of nation building in Afghanistan was left in limbo. It was an example of America's benign neglect, and was precisely what the terrorist groups of Afghanistan would have preferred - a breathing spell to regroup and prepare themselves for the next rounds of battle against the "super-Infidel", while anti-Americanism in that country continued to rise. ......... atimes.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157326)	5/21/2003 1:39:06 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

rd, how did i distort bush' plan? please explain how you understand it and who will get the tax breaks and how much. i heard that the top 200k people get the same amount of dough back as the next 120,000,000 from what's his face on hbo - the guy who said the 911 hijackers weren't cowards. that info could be wrong and i'm willing to listen. again, i never claimed the other course of action (money to those who would spend it on stuff) was "the best." just "better." big difference.