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: TimF who wrote (166775)	4/6/2003 11:30:48 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583516

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. I, too, saw Iraq as a negative but so what? There are a lot of nations like Iraq. There have been many in the past and there will be more in the future. Even so, to do a preemptive strike, you need to have a good reason. Most of the world didn't think we had one. 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. The point I was making........with many nations, its not hard to find a reason to put them in a bad light. What do you think Hitler did? He said he was invading nations to make them atone for past sins......real or alleged. 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. I see........the precedent is tailored made to fit Iraq. 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. Israel sees Syria as a serious threat whether you do or not. 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. All this is is administration pablum.......you want to believe it, that's fine but the attack against Kuwait was over 12 years ago. The statute of limitations ran out long ago. We are going after Iraq because Cheney and Rumsfield are pissed that we didn't take out Saddam 12 years and are revisiting a former goal. Karl Rove with Bush made it so. All the rest is just political spin and lame justification. ted