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 (240157)	7/6/2005 8:33:19 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576238

Pre-emptive war is a very dangerous thing. It's a slippery slope. I think it might be a good idea to rollback the clock on that one. However, Iraq was not exactly pre-emptive warfare as everyone says it was. That's not the question you asked, so I'll save that one for later. Anyway, if I had to come up with a list for Iraq that justified the invasion, I would put the following in that list: * Proven history of acquisition of WMD * Proven history of use and/or threats to use WMD * Policy of non-cooperation with world WMD monitoring organizations * Proven disregard and non-compliance with U.N. resolutions * Proven history of aggression against their neighbors * Proven history of direct engagement in terrorist acts against civilians or consortion or support of groups who have engaged in terrorist acts against civlians * Non-democratic form of gov't that is not accountable to its own people * Openly hostile to the U.S. * Proven attacks against the U.S.: civilians, U.S. soldiers engaged in peacetime operations in accordance with local gov'ts, or U.S. property * Proven attacks or history of attacks against allies with whom the U.S. has a mutual defence treaty That's all for now. I could think of others, but we can use this for your next point, which I'm sure this is leading to.