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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (65592)	9/4/2002 9:08:23 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

>> but allowing Saddam to violate the cease-fire agreement is, IMO, a major step backwards. Is that a cease fire agreement ? Or a Security Council resolution ? And I have a follow-up question.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (65592)	9/4/2002 9:47:32 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

Fred, I have been on both sides of this iraq question all day. Arguing here and with other members of my family. My conclusion is that saddam must go. Forget the moral issues for a minute. There is one very practical one that overtook the rest for me. Containment as a policy barely worked with the Russians. First Stalin the madman and the Krushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then and only then did the rules get set. But for the people of eastern europe it meant 45 years of servitude. With a weaker foe, the maintenance of containment or the balance of terror will work less well becauses one side is so much stronger. Saddam would fear preemptive attack and would also believe US would not risk bio-chemical attack for kuwait next time around. And saddam is as mad as stalin. Both remind me of mafia chieftons. Anyone who watches the Sopranos knows intuitiviely that dose guys would use any and all weapons and break any agreement. Its like the Fram oil filter commercial--You can pay me now or pay me more later on. Lets pay now and not wait for the inevitable. The definition of responsibility is to act decisively when its called for. And let us try to allay Sarmads fears about our imperialist anti-civilian bent and give him a Christmas present he will cherish forever--free iraq with a "possible" good future. mike