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: Joe NYC who wrote (153149)	10/10/2002 9:42:45 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1584891

It's your position that is inconsistent. On one hand, you show enthusiasm for one unprovoked war, on the other hand you are hinting on a civil war if another unprovoked war is started. This position is not inconsistent if you correlate the level of enthusiasm NOT with the particular enemy, but rather, who is president at the time of the war.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (153149)	10/10/2002 10:36:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1584891

That's how I feel. Thankfully, we are not at war yet, and things may clarify as we go forward. Either the case for offensive action is strengthened by new evidence, or weaken. But let me ask you the first part of your question: If NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was wrong, why did you, and still are supporting it? If intervention in Iraq is just as wrong, why are you opposing it. Joe, I supported it because the reports claiming that the Serbs were committing genocide.....forcing people off their land and into camps. A crime was being committed and needed to be address. With Iraq, we believe Saddam will commit a crime so we want to take him out a head of time. That's like shooting someone because you think he will kill someone in the future. Its against the law. ted