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 (166791)	4/6/2003 11:42:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583674

Even so, to do a preemptive strike, you need to have a good reason. Most of the world didn't think we had one. Our Executive Branch clearly thought we had one. Our Legislative Branch clearly thought we had one. The majority of the American People (normally, your gold standard) thought we had one. A significant number of other nations publicly stated we had one, and a much greater number privately stated it. Still more support the action once undertaken. So the question is: Should the United States, a soveriegn, give veto authority to ANY OTHER NATION over its foreign policy and self defense? Pre-emptive, or otherwise. This is but one more fallacy with the argument of the Left, i.e., the notion that if France doesn't want us to attack Iraq that somehow, they should have a say. This is absurd. Question: Throughout history, which wars have received prior approval of the United Nations? I can think of one.

To: tejek who wrote (166791)	4/7/2003 12:21:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583674

I, too, saw Iraq as a negative but so what? There are a lot of nations like Iraq. There are lot of nations like Iraq ins some way or another but few or none that combine all the aspects. North Korea is worse in a few ways but there is no easy way to solve that problem. Other countries have potential to be as bad as Iraq but haven't gotten there yet. 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. If they where alleged then he was just lieing. If they where real then they where in the past. As I said history. The problems with Iraq where not history when we decided to invade. I see........the precedent is tailored made to fit Iraq. It wouldn't have to be the exact situation but it the only president is something very like that. We aren't invading other countries because they aren't close to those criteria. Iraq is something of a special case. Israel sees Syria as a serious threat whether you do or not. All of its enemies provide threats with some degree of seriousness but Syria's military would get its head handed to it if it tried to take on Israel directly. 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. Iraq was "convicted" in the first gulf war, and it's punishment was the sanctions and the duty to cooperate with inspectors. It "escaped prison" by not complying with the terms of the cease fire and now Saddam's regime is being brought to justice. No statue of limitations applies. The sentence has been increased because of the escape and for "bad behavior". Or if you want to speak directly instead of with criminal justice analogies, the old policy (sanctions and pushing inspections) wasn't working. It didn't totally contain Saddam and it just made his people suffer (more then the war has and there was no reason to think the suffering would end for many more years). Something else had to be done and the positives of this action outweigh the negatives. Tim