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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (148926)	8/1/2002 1:52:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574258

Technically Iraq was the attacker. We held up from rolling in on to Bagdhad to eliminate the threat they demonstrated by the invasion of Kuwait because they agreed to a cease fire that included inspections. They violated the cease fire agreement (again and again over years) so there is no more cease fire. Tim, your technicality is a weak one. They attacked Kuwait over ten years ago. You may have noticed that Saddam recently has amassed troops near the Kuwait border. I believe he is trying to provoke us into attacking. He know's the consequences should we make that attack without Iraq moving against Kuwait first. Of course it is also very true that if we do attack now we will be taking an agressive act against Iraq. The point is that there is a justification here that there would not be for attacking other countries that we are not very friendly with like North Korea, or maybe Syria or Iran. Once an attack is made on one nation under weak pretenses, its not hard to attack other nations on similarly weak pretenses. ted