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: Road Walker who wrote (181623)	1/27/2004 1:10:40 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576159

Not unilaterally. If the free world wants to get together to police a rouge nation, fine, I agree we should review helping out. Unilaterally or not makes little difference to me. I'd entertain arguments that the act itself was wrong (unilaterally or not) but if it was it wouldn't become right just because some international body gave its blessing. No it would not be OK. Because that would mean that we were the "aggressive abusive tyrants". At least aggressive. I'm not sure about the rest, but since neither of us would actually support this action it may not be worth nailing down every fine point on this specific issue. Give me one compelling reason, from your many posts. The short answer, PLEASE. WMD's? Humanitarian? Reverse domino effect? Oil? It isn't as much one simple reason as a unique combination of reasons, that existed in Iraq but not elsewhere. You could say all of the above and more. The WMD is a not as strong of reason as originally it seemed because apparently at least most of them where destroyed but the WMD programs and the cover up where a violation of the cease fire. Also at the time that the decision was made it was still widely thought that Saddam still had a lot of ready WMD. The cease fire violation is more of a justification then a "compelling reason", but justifications are important as well. The humanitarian reason and in the long run the possibility of something like a reverse domino effect are potentially big. Also there was the fact that Iraq was a problem that apparently could not go away as long as Saddam was in power. In a real sense the 1st war had not totally ended. I'm not only talking about the cease fire violations related to WMD but also the low level war that had been going on with Iraq on and off for over a decade. Tim