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: Elsewhere who wrote (41009)	8/30/2002 2:28:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How many US citizens have died due to obesity, smoking, alcohol, traffic accidents Just to nitpick, with the exception of the traffic accidents, which are, um, accidental, most of these people died as a result of free choices they made. If we like freedom, we must put up with the result of free choices. Slightly different case from dying as a result of a terror mega-attack. One more point: the speculations when Saddam might get nukes - in two, five, ten years - should consider his age. He is 65, in a decade he'll be 75! In my view it's more likely that the problem will be solved biologically before he launches another major military operation. Problems like this don't go away, they just get inherited by the next generation. Crippled or not, my money's on Uday doing away with his more reasonable brother -- just look at the inheritance struggles under the Ottomans for some prime examples. We had Syria contained too, before Boy Assad inherited from his father. Now Syria is supplying both Hizbullah and Iraq and is part of the problem again.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (41009)	8/30/2002 3:11:52 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One more point: the speculations when Saddam might get nukes - in two, five, ten years - should consider his age. He is 65, in a decade he'll be 75! In my view it's more likely that the problem will be solved biologically before he launches another major military operation. I don't care if I sound like a broken record, I will keep repeating this. It's not Saddam that is the issue. The weapons themselves are the issue. Nobody in Iraq should have access to nuclear weapons. Not Saddam, not Odai, not Saddam Lite (assuming a coup), not Islamist revolutionaries. None of them. Period. End of message.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (41009)	8/30/2002 3:37:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jochen, there is a difference between dying from smoking, eating, drinking or crashing the SUV into a tree trunk and being randomly selected to die in a Twin Towers attack or Lockerbie bombing of a 747. See if you can spot the difference. <How many US citizens have died due to Saddam's aggression in the last decade since the end of Desert Storm? Few. How many US citizens have died due to obesity, smoking, alcohol, traffic accidents > Also, even if there have been a few due to Saddam, then that's a few too many. There should be none. For example, just a few weeks ago there were some Americans killed in the bombing at Hebrew University and those bombers are rewarded by Saddam paying their families an incentive bonus. That's enough reason to attack him. We have to start with a rational and just policy and killing attackers seems like a fine idea. Moslem Head-Hackers for example would make fine targets. Mqurice