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: epicure who wrote (115274)	9/19/2003 5:08:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

No thanks to the Haiti book. I know enough about the depths of human depravity to not want to take a closer look in regard to Haiti's. Saddam is anything but a coward. He relishes confrontation and violence and it's his lifelong work and he'll almost certainly die while working. I think he's thrilled to be in a fight to the death with the USA though not pleased about progress to now. Taking on the biggest and best [USA] is quite a challenge and he has been prepared to do so at least twice, with internal and external wars to amuse himself too. He knows completely the live by the sword, die by the sword rules. It gives meaning to his life. He survived the Gulf War, which is why it was seen by him as a great victory over the Great Satan. He dared the USA to take him on again and King George II obliged. As Albright [and Helen Clark said, though Clark was excoriated for it], there wouldn't have been a war if Gore was president. Saddam might have got away with it. Although it's not mentioned much, I suspect that the main reason for King George II's attack on Saddam is that George's wife and father were apparently attacked by Saddam's terrorist agents, which is really looking for trouble. I suspect that would be cause enough for a King to show who's boss and get those responsible. I wonder why WMDs were the focus - they were a red herring it seems to me. As they now admit, WMDs were a bureaucratic reason for the attack. Saddam doesn't seem like a coward to me: dictionary.reference.com Mqurice