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: tejek who wrote (166761)	4/6/2003 2:34:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583492

And before you respond, it really doesn't matter what the truth is......the perception is such and therein lies the problem. I disagree with the idea that it doesn't matter what the truth is. Also I think a lot of the world did see Iraq as a problem even if they didn't support the use of force to solve the problem. Germany was very warlike for much of its first 130 years of existence; should we invade them now since they oppose us in this war? If history was the determiner of whether a country can be dangerous or not, we could justify invading a number of our allies. Germany's history isn't that of the current leadership, or even their current constitutional regime. It is just history. The Baath party is not history yet, although its getting close. Because a precedent has been set.........its natural to want to know what were the parameters for determining that precedent. The precedent is that regimes that grossly abuse their own people, invade two or more other countries, fight a war against the US, lose, sign a cease fire agreement, violate that agreement, break multiple UN resolutions, and try to aquire ballistic missiles and WMD technologies have to fear a US military response. You're not up to date: burmafund.org. From your link "The Burmese Army, for example, has reportedly taken delivery of around 80 Type 69 main battle tanks, more than 100 Type 63 light amphibious tanks, and 250 or more Type 85 armoured personnel carriers. It has also acquired new field and anti-aircraft artillery" Another link - idf.il The Iraqi Army Personnel The regular Iraqi Army comprises approximately 400,000 officers and enlisted personnel. Weapons * Tanks: approx. 2500 – 2300. including T-54/5, T-59/69 made in China, T-62 400, T-72. * Recon. Armored vehicles: approx. 1500. including BRDM-2, AML-60/90, EE-3 JARARCA, EE-9 CASCAVEL. * Combat APCs: 900 BMP-1/2 * APCs: 2000. including BTR-60, MTLB, YW-531, A1/A2, M-113, PANHARD M-3, E-11 URUTU. Israel and Syria exchange missiles and/or gunfire over the Golan Hts on a regular basis. I thought we were closely allied with Israel. Yes they sometimes exchange gunfire (not really on a regular basis I think but it does happen) and yes we are allied with Israel. What does that have to do with my statement that Syria isn't up to par with Israel? Or even the statement that it hasn't threatened our interests the way Iraq has. Syria is not a serious threat to the existence of Israel at this point. Iraq took over Kuwait and threatened Saudi. If they had nukes they could make such a threat again, so their WMD program is a threat. Also a threat to the oil is a more direct threat to the US then a threat to Israel, but we would help Israel and keep them well armed against any threats. If Kuwait and Saudi were as strong as Israel then Iraq would not be much of a threat. What is the point of taking the accusation seriously? (Re: the accusations that the war is just about grabbing oil) I think they are silly but enough people make them and enough people take them seriously that they deserve at least a short serious reply. Tim