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 (194690)	7/16/2004 3:56:32 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577111

Articles 4 and 5 are not the issue; the issue is does attack on Serbia equate to the attack on Iraq. I say it doesn't and I gave you reasons why I think that way. As far as NATO and it's obligations are concerned, they are the same thing. Both were actions under article 4. In Serbia, NATO consulted and decided to fight (members are not obligated to fight), in Iraq NATO consulted and several members held out (result, no action). In both cases NATO fulfilled it's obligation (to consider the situation), and in neither case was force required under the NATO charter. The only difference was France and Germany wanted force in one case, and they didn't want it in the other. Their reasons can be debated. This is such shit........you support attacking Iraq which has killed and maimed thousands of Americans and cost hundreds of billions in order to save a couple of billion. That makes absolutely no sense. There are many reasons, chief of which it was the right thing to do for Iraq, and for America's defense. The bottom line is the climate was changing and Iraq was either going to be held to task, or they were going to be let off the hook. The status quo was not going to go on. You seem to support attacking Serbia which had nothing to do with the security of America, solely on the basis that we're being nice to our allies. A good faith that has not paid off apparently. Maybe we will fail (you seem to be pulling for that), but if we don't, we're a long way to a more stable middle east. Yes, and he moved those forces into place. No one asked him to......there was no change in Saddam's behavior to warrant such a move. This is what got the inspectors back in in the first place. The fact it was necessary also shows Iraq was not a willing "inspectee". Huh? In 1998, the weapon inspectors were sure that 95% of the WMD had been destroyed. Correct or not, the world didn't really believe that. Does he get a pass on the other 5% and the programs themselves? Waiting a couple of months would not have killed no one. It would have put us at a disadvantage. If we had any faith in the inspection process, that would be one thing, but Iraq didn't warrant that faith. We may disagree on this point, but that's what the administration was reacting to. Brian