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: Alighieri who wrote (160328)	2/7/2003 1:23:26 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578938

Where is the attack by Iraq on the US that Nato is obligated to come to the defense of the US towards a US led attack on Iraq? And an attack that few nations support, let alone the UN security council. This is the subject about which the anti-war liberals seem to not comprehend the facts. Yes, it is true that Iraq was uninolved in 9/11. No one has suggested otherwise -- the administration has, properly, suggested there are some connections between Al Queda and Iraq. But that's not the point. The point is you can't isolate the kind of terrorism we experienced on 9/11. The war is against ALL terrorism, not just Al Queda. You could kill every Al Queda member and it would not solve the problem with terrorism. The point of terrorism isn't the 3,000 who were killed. The point of terrorism is the "terror" -- the fear it strikes into the hearts of the survivors -- "When will it happen to me?". Getting rid of Al Queda does not get rid of the terror. It just gets revenge. The administration decided from the early days following 9/11 that the war on terrorism would, by necessity, include dealing with Iraq. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. It would make absolutely zero sense to tackle terrorism without taking out Saddam.

To: Alighieri who wrote (160328)	2/7/2003 3:07:14 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578938

Al Re..On the other hand, ask your self, what is it about Bush that makes these otherwise seasoned diplomats (I think a Canadian minister) refer to him with such names. Bush is the devil in public opinion polls anywhere but here. Now you are trying to blame Gw for bad diplomacy by Schroeder and his group.. What difference does it make what GW did, it still is bad diplomacy. Does GW stick up for US interests over European interests, of course. That hardly makes him the ogre the Europeans are trying to paint GW as. The Europeans got their collective noses bent out of shape over Kyoto, however their buddy Bill could have easily tried to pass it when he was president; it it would have been acceptable. Bill knew it wouldn't pass,so he shelved it, and left it for GW. Where is the attack by Iraq on the US that Nato is obligated to come to the defense of the US towards a US led attack on Iraq? Certainly the attacks by terrorists on Israel, backed by Saddam; while they are an attack upon a US ally, do not constitute an attack upon a NATO country. However, an attack upon Turkey, if the war spills over from Iraq,would be. Secondly, an attack by the guys trained in northern Iraq, against France and Britian would also require a NATO response. The problem is that the dingbats in Europe feel about terrorists,as you do, that if you don't bother them, they won't bother you. Hello, anybody home. What did Bali do to the terrorist. What did Kenya do. Europe has had a policy of appeasement to the terrorists for 30 yrs, mainly Italy and France, yet both have higher rates of terrorism than most. Appeasement hasn't worked, and we had better hang together, lest we all hang separately. On that topic, last night on Hardball, Mathews, who believes as you do, started interupting and yelling at Edwards, because Edwards agrees with Gw on Iraq. In fact, Edwards said that Iraq should have been a target before 9/11 because of evidence of Saddams noncompliance. Frankly, maybe Edwards won't win yet in 04,but he looked, and sounded good. This guy can speak, and is good on his feet. Give him a couple of runs, and my money will be on him.