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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (20415)	3/1/2002 11:22:51 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I seriously can't come up with many options to deal with violent megalomaniacs and any ideas are good ideas. My apologies then for misreading you. My only answers to your questions are the "it's complicated" ones. By that I mean that whichever direction one argues, one needs to take account of the downsides. For instance, an invasion argument needs to take account of the serious loss of life on both sides and the way that brings into play certain outcomes. That's the only way one can assess just how strong the conviction and evidence has to be going in. As for Saddam, I don't know whether he's Hitler, Assad of Syria (hope I got that right), one of the strong man types in the former Soviet colonies, or something else. And I don't think it behooves us to invade until there is a fairly widespread public conviction as to which. And that's what concerns me about the Bushies. They are, as a clan, an arrogant bunch; and right now that arrogance is at an extreme level. They could well feel they have tapped into God's own word and it says take down Saddam. John