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: Dale Knipschield who wrote (65952)	9/17/2002 10:05:18 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

>> take it that you think that a regime change is not a desirable goal. Why the h___ do you assume ? You're wrong again. My problem is that no one has presented a plan that doesn't take the risk of killing a hundred thousand people or more. And you can for sure assume that casually killing people by dropping bombs on them is not a desirable goal. Sarmad

To: Dale Knipschield who wrote (65952)	9/17/2002 10:19:47 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

In defense of sarmad, he is more fearful of casualties and their effects on iraqi people than on the ending of saddams regime. I asked him in my last post to deal with a scenario which had low civilian casualties. Another point is that if Saddam actually gave up WMD(very long shot) he would be no different that many other countries around the world and we would have no pressing reason at that point in singling him out for regime change. As a matter of principle, i agree with the above otherwise the US will be fighting everywhere for all time. We should only intervene when clear national interest is involved--oil/gulf war, self defense/afganistan, wmd countries and some special cases based on issues of ethnic cleansing and genocide/serbia, ruanda. Iraq would not fit in if they lost WMD capability. mike