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: JohnM who wrote (80692)	3/9/2003 12:38:17 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

deleted, already answered

To: JohnM who wrote (80692)	3/9/2003 1:04:08 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

1. Specific timetables for specific disarmament items. We have had twelve years of "Deadlines," John. The last UN resolution gave him one that he has refused to meet. You want to join the French and Germans and let him "rope a dope" some more. So that's just more of "Leave Saddam in Power." 2. If one got serious thinking along these lines, there are no doubt any number of alternative ways to think about clear disarmament goals without "regime change." More, "Leave Saddam in Power." 3. Since Saddam is not an imminent threat and since there is no evidence of formal and serious ties to Al Q, just leave him there with serious minding capabilities. More "Leave Saddam in Power." You have convinced yourself that we should do nothing until he is in the same power situation that Clinton has left us to deal with in NK. You would do the same, I assume, with Iran, Syria, et al. You just want to bury your head in the sand and kick the can down the road like the last Admin did. I am delighted that people with your viewpoint are not in power.