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: hmaly who wrote (160380)	2/8/2003 11:12:18 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579137

America is considering attacking Iraq to defend itself from attacks by WMD, not Turkey. NATO has an obligation to defend Turkey in case it is attacked. France and Germany are trying to stop America by putting a NATO ally at risk. This is a distortion. Turkey is an accomplice of the US in the attack. Turkey is not in a defensive posture, it is in the offensive position in war it reluctantly joined. If Turkey is at any risk, it is from within its own borders, given the tremendous opposition to the support it is providing to the US. Same thing here. Who cares why a majority of citizens oppose helping Turkey defend itself. The terms of the charter demands that Germany and France help defend a fellow NATO country, for whatever reason; whether a majority of its citizens like it or not. See above. The charter only applies to defensive action, not aggressive action. What is going on in Iraq has nothing to do with Nato. Did you bother to listen to Powells speech. In it, he stated that they just became aware of the mobile labs after the inspectors were in Iraq. Did you? Because if you did, and if you had read my post carefully, ;;you would know that he spoke of an AlQueda camp, in Northern Iraq, Kurdish land, outside of Saddam's control, fixed in place, brick and mortar, and in the no fly (what a laugh, as if we would respect the lines of the US/UK/nonUN santioned no fly). No inspectors anywhere near the place. Simple, first of all the rocket test stands themselves are legal, its the rockets, that Iraq would need those stands for, which are illegal. Did Powell at any time prove that illegal rockets were tested or being made in the factory by the stands? Did the inpsectors find any proof on the ground to support Powell's claims? The answer is no. and so our jets would have to violate the no fly zone boundaries to bomb the stands. And you say I can't reason? Man...we are about to invade the phucking country. You are talking about violating no fly zones? Sure, but I hardly have an idea about what the big fuss is about. Even if Bitish intelligence copied parts of that document from another source, doesn't mean the document is incorrect, or British intelligence doesn't agree with it. Unbelievable. The closest ally of the US, the secretary of state of which went in front of the UN with "compelling" evidence of Iraqi villany, has to resort to plagiarism of intelligence from the public domain, call it its own, use it to justify war, and you think that's ok? What does that say about our own intelligence when our closest ally has to resort to plagiarism? We are. Powell pointed out the connection between Al qaeda and Saddam. Why is it so impossible for you to accept that. Because it is so flimsy, it would not get through the door of a courthouse, let alone be admissible. You point to Iraqi groups organizing. Let me tell you, terrorists around the world are drooling at what Bush is doing. This will be their dream come true. Al