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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5159)	12/20/2003 12:13:47 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

That's exactly the dilemma - if we couldn't trust Saddam to reach this kind of solution, should we deal with another nasty tyrant who could easily give up some of his programs and maintain others out in the vast Libyan desert? Can we inspect enough land area to feel we can trust him? Can we buy him off with enough new oil field investment to trust him? Are your assertions that this policy is shortsighted unpatriotic? I don't think so, but questioning other US decisions in the region sure was, to some folks. Yet the issues are similar. Each policy - negotiation or intervention - has unexpected consequences. In this case, the consensus seems to be that fewer weapons among tyrants at no cost in lives or US budget resources is better than dealing with those weapons later. A good outcome at low cost - even if it may smell a bit. But it argues that the US approach is entirely situational and case by case, IMHO.