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 (160363)	2/7/2003 9:40:29 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579027

Al Re.. so Germany is obligated to support the pre-emptive attack to comply with Nato rules, in case the subject of that attack retaliates against a Nato member state, Turkey. You know, the other day, you said I could read and interpret. Too bad the same can't be said for you. Here is what I said. NATO is a group of 18 nations, who have a pact, which says an attack upon one, is an attack upon all; and all members are supposed to work toward the safety of the group. 2 wks ago, in an effort to forestall Turkeys help for the Iraq invasion, Germany and France got together and blocked a resolution, shifting additional resources from NATO countries to Turkey, to bring Turkeys strength up to needed levels, should the war spill over into Turkey. You will notice that I said Germany and France blocked NATO from shifting additional resources to Turkey should the war on Iraq spill over into Turkey. Where on earth did I say NATO was obligated to support a preemptive attack. I said NATO is obliged to support Turkey in case the war on Iraq spills over into Turkey, and one way to do that is preposition forces in the area, just in case. You have heard of planning ahead, haven't you? Why did France and Germany block Turkey from planning ahead and refusing to let them get prepared defensively, just in case. That is a willful violation of the intent of the NATO charter. More of the same, only worse, since Northern Iraq is not even under Bagdhad control. First off, it was in Iraqi territory, and Saddam has control of a large part of northern Iraq, plus Saddam has operatives there. What part of Powells speech on that didn't you understand. The attack on UK and France originated from Iraq territory, by Al qaeda members connected to Saddam. Saddam now has connections to the UNser El assam ,( I believe he called the group,); terrorist group. Of course Saddam tried to hide them in northern Iraq. That doesn't mean they aren't under Saddams control. The attack on Bali was against Australians, who had pledged support for the US against Iraq. Kenya's attack was against our embassy. If they really were after the Australians, why not go to Australia and blow something up. Bali is a small island off of Indonesia, and Al qaeda has an insurgency group in Indonesia, connected to Al Qaeda. Why Bali. Because Indonesia got a lot of revenue from tourists, primarilly Australians; and Al qaeda wanted to ruin INdonesias tourist trade. The latest attack in Kenya was on a hotel for mainly Israeli vacationers. Once again, didn't Al qaeda know how to find Israel? Its on all of the maps. Al Qaeda attacked an Israeli hotel in Kenya, because of the large amount of Israelis, plus once again, Al qaeda had a group in Kenya, trying to overthrow that gov. Al qaeda isn't just attacking america or Jews, Al qaeda is attacking everyone they feel like,if it furthers their terrorism aims, whether they were attacked first or not. The attack in France is a good example of that. France has been keeping America from attacking Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Iraq, and they still got attacked. Plus Powell pointed out, there are cells in Germany. He is playing to majority opinion. All these guys are to some extent. Doesn't make them right Now how can that be. I thought you said the majority was against the war.