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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148147)	9/26/2002 3:59:59 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Oh, yeah - let him take the likely billions he has skimmed while in power and go become an independent sponsor of terrorism. Pinochet, Marcos and other deposed dictators were not threatening the world with WMDs or backing international terrorist groups. And Pinochet had the new government of Chile to keep an eye on him while failing health and strong US-Philipines relations kept Marcos from being a problem to anyone. Saddam could be MORE dangerous in exile, if indirectly so. Just my initial reaction. Avoiding war is good, but let's be sure any means of avoiding it near-term does not leave the danger out there. Bob

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148147)	9/26/2002 4:57:02 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Looks like this could be a non-starter -- <<Iraq expert Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst now doing research at the National Defense University, said it would be ''totally out of character'' for Saddam to accept exile. The Iraqi leader regards survival and his continued hold on power as inextricably linked, she said. Moreover, Saddam could not be sure that he would last long in exile given his long list of enemies.>>