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: Hawkmoon who wrote (38465)	8/19/2002 4:10:12 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<We simply must focus upon Saddam since he is the one seeking those weapons, and HIS REGIME IS IRAQ. > Hawk, you do consistently make good sense [which only means that you agree with me - others no disagree]. If people don't like Saddam, they are really going to dislike it when Uday takes over. Saddam is going to seem like a benign pussy cat after Uday gets his malevolent mind on the levers of power. Getting rid of Saddam would NOT be a good idea if it meant Uday took over instead. The whole situation is quite fascinating really and great Shakespearian tragedy material. There are George I and George II [a bit like the English Kings - George VI they got to, or thereabouts] and on the other side Saddam and sons, both running political dynasties. Saddam killed his daughters' husbands - and a lot more besides. Traditionally, at the end of the play, there are a lot of dead people and some soliloquies or raving King Lear [so I've heard anyway - not being any fan of boring old Shakespeare]. Mqurice