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 (337768)	5/17/2007 2:20:39 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574595

"How do you define a better or worse war?" When is war justified? en.wikipedia.org "When is a war just by the criteria of Just War theory? (Jus ad bellum) In modern language, these rules hold that, in order to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum): * recapturing things taken * punishing people who have done wrong A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations" * Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other; * Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war; * Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. * Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; * Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6] * Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. HELLO ADELA"

To: tejek who wrote (337768)	5/24/2007 7:36:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574595

and that there were no WMDs and no Saddam/al Qaida tie as told by the Bush administration In those strong terms it was far from clear. If you said "it was clear there where no current stockpiles of ready to use WMD", or "there were no strong ties, between Al Qaeda and Saddam", then I could agree. Also the concern wasn't just about Al Qaeda but any terrorist connections. Its been living on a steady diet of lies, hyperbole, and misrepresentations Sound like your talking about the Democratic party. Well really politicians as a class. A million things where predicted. Some of them failed to happen and never will. Some happened. Some may happen in the future or might not. Not from the group who opposed the war. Yes from those who opposed the war. They hit every category I listed. To be fair so did supporters of the war. There is no winning this war. Since you can predict the future, can you tell me what AMD's is going to do next month? How about which team is going to win and lose in each game of the NBA finals?