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 : Network Associates (NET) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (2010)	2/17/1998 5:51:00 PM
From: Wigglesworth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6021

Hussein Proclaims Mother of All HelpDesk Contracts Network Associates' HelpDesk Implemented by BankBoston biz.yahoo.com BTW, shysters at NETA are proposing a new name NET_ASS (as the Yahoo abbreviation above) to avoid trademark infringement.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (2010)	2/17/1998 8:52:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6021

OT. Iraq. Paul, the four reasons you gave for the Bush administrations not proceeding on to Bagdad with the intention of removing Saddam are all correct, but I think not properly weighted. And leave some key considerations out. The number one given reason was the concern that removing Saddam would leave a power vacuum which our then even greater foe and fundamentalist threat, Iran, would likely fill. That is if we just left. The alternative was to remain in occupation for an extended period, to the great opprobrium of the Arab masses within and without Iraq. Perhaps not if we spent huge treasure on good works, a la post war Europe or Japan, but there was zero appetite for that in Washington. And probably that was the most important reason. In hindsight, it looks weaker, but not foolish. The number one emotive reason was the sense we were on the verge of looking like a bully, in the view of 1) Colin Powel (head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and after he pressed his view, 2) the Pres, George Bush. This was reported at the time amid the 24/7 deluge of news coverage, but seems to have been lost in most people's estimates. My guess is that it was absolutely central to the decision making in the corridors of power. And very wrong-headed. I mean, who cares? If you're on balance right, win, press it hard, and definitely overdo it a bit to be sure.) The specific images that Colin Powell had in mind were the TV images of the, well, massacre, of Iraqi's fleeing Kuwait City on the sole road heading north toward Iraq. Total carnage. Not a truck or car or body left standing. All obliterated by hugely successful staffing A-10 Warthog gunships, helio gunships, etc. Total carnage. Of course, the obliterated convoy also reeked with the plundered French perfume, and lay strewn with TV's, stereos, electronics of all types, furniture etc., all plundered from Kuwaiti homes by the fleeing Iraqis. All weak, very weak, in my view. Of course those fleeing plundering troops should have been obliterated, as should the rest of the Iraqi army until Saddam surrendered. Such a total victory would not have left a power vacuum. It would have put the fear of a Western God in the Iranian heart. I have always had a lot less admiration for Colin Powell than is fashionable for this reason; of course the preppy George Bush was ultimately responsible for the decision. Doug