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: i-node who wrote (383804)	5/12/2008 12:17:33 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 1573081

Thats a loaded question. I believe our treaties should always be honored. However i dont think the US has the ability to intervene anywhere and everywhere. Do we have a treaty with israel? Israel has been attacked before and we help but have never sent combat forces. I would hope we could keep it that way.

To: i-node who wrote (383804)	5/12/2008 12:24:19 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573081

Do you believe that a direct attack on an ally (e.g., Israel) would constitute an Act of War against the US? That is, does the term "ally" mean anything, or I would not use the language you use...so I would say that an attacked ally merits America's support, but not unconditionally as you do. would we stand idly by and watch an allied nation be slaughtered? (Not speaking of just Israel, but of any ally)? I am generally less factious as your statement implies. I would like to see us belong to a world community that collectively responds to aggression. Slaughter in Africa or elsewhere in the world deserves the same degree of gravity as aggression in the ME or on Israel. Al