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: carranza2 who wrote (136413)	6/12/2004 4:11:16 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think I'm making progress with respect to raising your consciousness as to how dangerous Saddam armed with nukes would have been. No more dangerous than a nuclear armed Kim Chong Il. I notice you don't like talking about the dear leader and how we are "handling" him, even though his situation is arguably very similar to the hypothetical nuclear Saddam. And no more dangerous than the certified nuclear Pakistan -- where the possibility that the mullahs will take over is arguably higher than the possibility that Saddam would ever have been able to acquire nuclear weapons, while we contained him. We live in a dangerous world. If we respond preemptively to all hypothetical dangers, our long term survival probability is reduced to zero.