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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NITT who wrote (171395)	10/2/2002 10:18:22 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Nitt, re: Well, the nut running Iraq invaded a friend of the US in 1990, got his ass kicked back to Baghdad by a UN backed, US lead coalition force. The terms of the cease-fire that was signed by the Iraqi govt included a verified disarmament. We're now talking 12 years ago. If the violations were so onerous, why have we waited 12 years for enforcement? Why didn't we act when we pulled the inspectors? The current issue isn't the same issue as it was in '90; the current justification is the threat of dangerous weapons. By the same logic we would be justified in an unprovoked attack on a dozen other countries. My major concern is an important policy shift by the US. Our military justification has always been to respond to aggression by others. We don't start wars, we end them. Now we are acting on a perceived threat. Do we want the US to be seen as an aggressor nation? That's an important debate that seems to have been lost in the war rhetoric. re: I hope things do not lead to a war with Iraq, but if not for the Bush administration and Tony Blair threatening another ass kicking, Saddam would not even be considering inspectors. I hope that you are right that Bush would not proceed with this war if Iraq complied with the inspections. I suspect that Bush will settle only for "regime change". John