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 (158399)	7/8/2003 4:17:27 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

Facing Reality in Iraq, Washington Post Tuesday, July 8, 2003; Page A16 MOST OF IRAQ is stable, and most Iraqis continue to cooperate with the U.S. mission in the hope that it will succeed in passing power to a representative government. But in military terms, the postwar situation is getting worse rather than better. Enemy forces, concentrated in areas north and west of Baghdad where support for the old regime was strongest, have grown bolder and more effective by the week, and Saddam Hussein himself apparently managed to smuggle a defiant message to the al-Jazeera network in time for the Fourth of July. While their degree of organization and connections with the former dictator are debatable, the militants pose a clear strategic threat to the U.S. mission beyond the painful cost in lives they are exacting. The danger is that they will succeed in triggering a broader guerrilla war against U.S. troops fed not just by loyalty to the Baath Party but also by popular discontent with American occupation -- a war that could destabilize Iraq and the region around it. To head off that threat, the Bush administration needs to act decisively and soon. The first step toward regaining the initiative would be full acceptance by the administration of the fact that more resources are needed -- more money, more civilian administrators and more troops. Assertions by Washington-based Pentagon officials that the current force is large enough don't square with reports from the field, which depict a steadily mounting conflict as well as sinking morale among some U.S. units exhausted after months of hard duty. Nor are the Pentagon's reports about the recruitment of allied forces encouraging: Though 70 nations have been contacted, only about 10 have made concrete commitments, and the number of non-U.S. troops is due to rise only from 12,000 to 20,000 by the end of summer. The poor support is a direct result of the administration's poor diplomacy, both before and after the war -- and, in particular, its insistence on monopolizing control over Iraq while mostly excluding the United Nations. India and Pakistan, for example, are reluctant to deploy troops under U.S. rather than U.N. command, and European countries have been slower to supply aid and advisers who could be assisting with reconstruction. The only way to bolster U.S. forces without dispatching still more American soldiers and reservists is for the Bush administration to formally seek assistance from the United Nations and NATO -- and, in doing so, patch its relations with France, Germany and other allies that opposed the war. That would open the way not only to greater numbers of allied troops but also to more help in such tasks as training Iraqi police forces and restoring power and other vital services in cities. Internationalizing the occupation would deflect growing Iraqi fears that the United States plans to rule the country indefinitely. Meanwhile, the administration could seek explicit U.N. and allied support for a detailed plan to return Iraq to self-government. The sketchy current scheme, under which U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer is to appoint an interim council and convene a convention to write a new constitution, is opposed by key Shiite leaders and might increase rather than assuage Iraqi dissatisfaction. While reaching out to U.S. allies, President Bush also needs to speak more clearly about Iraq to the American people. Last week he finally acknowledged that rebuilding Iraq would be "a massive and long-term undertaking," but his shallow "bring 'em on" taunt to the militants merely underlined his failure to clearly explain the objectives of U.S. forces and how long it may take to achieve them. Americans are now dying in Iraq at the rate of nearly one per day. Mr. Bush needs to tell the country why that sacrifice is necessary -- and what he will do to mitigate the threat. © 2003 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158399)	7/8/2003 4:19:10 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

Iraq Attacks Wound Seven U.S. Soldiers 28 minutes ago By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq - A blistering series of attacks, coming nearly hourly, wounded seven U.S. soldiers in Iraq (news - web sites) on Tuesday, and the United States offered a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest of anyone who kills a coalition soldier or Iraqi policeman.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158399)	7/8/2003 4:24:47 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

<Conservatives' core duty on WMD By Doug Bandow WASHINGTON – There was a time when conservatives fought passionately to preserve America as a limited constitutional republic. That was, in fact, the essence of conservatism. It's one reason Franklin Roosevelt's vast expansion of government through the New Deal aroused such bitter opposition on the right. But many conservative activists seem to have lost that philosophical commitment. They now advocate autocratic executive rule, largely unconstrained by constitutional procedures or popular opinions. This curious attitude is evident in the conservative response to the gnawing question: Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? A surprising number of conservatives respond: So what? He must have had them; maybe he gave them away. And, anyway, Hussein was a bad guy. In their view, even to ask the question is to mount a partisan attack on President Bush, and that's downright unpatriotic.It always seemed likely that Baghdad possessed WMD. Not only did Iraq once maintain a WMD program, but how else to explain the regime's obstructionist behavior during the inspections process? Yet it made equal sense to assume that a desperate Hussein would use any WMD to defend his regime - and that serious elements of Baghdad's arsenal would be quickly found. There may be a logical explanation for the fact that WMD were not used and have not been located; significant WMD stockpiles might eventually turn up. Moreover, it's hard to imagine the administration simply concocting its WMD claims. The president, though a practiced politician, isn't the type to lie so blatantly. Whatever the faults of his lieutenants, none seems likely to advance a falsehood that would be so hard to maintain. But the longer we go without any discoveries, the more questionable the prewar claims appear to have been. The allies have checked all of the sites originally targeted for inspection, arrested leading Baath Party members, and offered substantial rewards for information. Even in Hussein's centralized regime, more than a few people must have known where any WMD stocks were hidden or transferred and would be able to help now. Which means it is entirely fair to ask the administration, where are the WMD? The answer matters for the simplest practical reasons. Possible intelligence failures need to be corrected. Washington's loss of credibility should be addressed; saying "trust me" will be much harder for this president in the future or a future president. Stonewalling poses an even greater threat to our principles of government. It matters whether the president lied to the American people. Political fibs are common, not just about with whom presidents have had sex, but also to advance foreign-policy goals. Remember the Tonkin Gulf incident, inaccurate claims of Iraqi troop movements against Saudi Arabia before the first Gulf war, and repetition of false atrocity claims from ethnic Albanian guerrillas during the Kosovo war. Perhaps the administration manipulated the evidence, choosing information that backed its view, turning assumptions into certainties, and hyping equivocal materials. That, too, would hardly be unusual. But no president should take the US into war under false pretenses. There is no more important decision: The American people deserve to hear official doubts as well as certitudes. The point is not that the administration is necessarily guilty of misbehavior, but that it should be forced to defend its decisionmaking process. Pointing to substitute justifications for the war just won't do. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notes that the alleged Al Qaeda connection divided the administration internally, and humanitarian concerns did not warrant risking American lives. Only fear over Iraqi possession of WMD unified the administration, won the support of allies, particularly Britain, and served as the centerpiece of the administration's case. If the WMD didn't exist, or were ineffective, Washington's professed case for war collapses. Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking. Republicans - think President Eisenhower, for instance - once took seriously the requirement that Congress declare war. These days, however, Republican presidents and legislators, backed by conservative intellectuals, routinely argue that the chief executive can unilaterally take America into war. Thus, in their view, once someone is elected president, he or she faces no legal or political constraint. The president doesn't need congressional authority; Washington doesn't need UN authority. Allied support is irrelevant. The president needn't offer the public a justification for going to war that holds up after the conflict ends. The president may not even be questioned about the legitimacy of his professed justification. Accept his word and let him do whatever he wants, irrespective of circumstances. This is not the government created by the Founders. This is not the government that any believer in liberty should favor. It is foolish to turn the Iraq war, a prudential political question, into a philosophical test for conservatism. It is even worse to demand unthinking support for Bush. He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives. Fidelity to the Constitution and republican government demands no less. • Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. csmonitor.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158399)	7/9/2003 2:58:17 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

What's "totally false"? That the top 400 keeps changing every year? LOL - can you read? highest income does not equal richest american. So what? You're the one who brought this "top 400" study up to begin with, aren't you? Now it doesn't count because it doesn't support your conclusions? you just agreed what i said was totally false and your response was "so what?" yes, i can read - that's how i spot your incoherent themes liek the one above. -lol-