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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4511)	2/16/2003 2:36:14 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

We have to make the best educated guess we can. That's all we can do. The folks who advocate independent US action against Iraq do a good job of describing a potential worst-case scenario for failure to act. What I don't see is equivalent analysis of the risks of action. We need to analyze the outcomes for both action and inaction. Yeah, it may play out as you describe and that wouldn't be good. But neither would be good if terrorism escalates, or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Jordan falls, or Muslim countries take up the cause and we have a worldwide holy war, or hate crimes in our country, or... Weigh the risks of inaction against the risks of action and I'll give your opinion more credence.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4511)	2/18/2003 6:58:48 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7720

And we can't keep troops and fleets there on station forever. We have to withdraw for the summer. We can't leave them there forever but we don't have to withdraw for the summer. We would want to avoid battle in the summer so we wouldn't start anything then, but if we had to we could at a greater difficulty and expense (probably including a greater number of casualties) fight then, esp if it was against an Iraqi attack trying to push in to Turkey. (not that I would expect Saddam to do that because that would end his chance to avoid an invasion of Iraq). Suppose you had 100 people and told them to go to Texas and find any meth labs, but the government had had ten years to hide those and was doing their best to make sure you didn't find them. Do you really think those 100 people would find a single meth lab? The whole concept is silly. Good analogy, at least for the chemical and bio weapons and the facilities to create them. Tim