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: Ish who wrote (149906)	10/29/2004 7:01:34 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

You can randomly open the report and find item after item that completely supports containment as a viable, preferable, strategy. YES, the inescapable conclusion is that without inspectors there, Saddam would try to get away with whatever he could. BUT with inspectors there, he would actually destroy weapons he was building and stop entire programs. An irrational person would say "hey, the mere fact that we can't trust him justifies war" and set loose 120,000 troops, kill 3500 - 15,000 (or 100,000) civilians, see over 1,000 troops killed and almost 10,000 wounded - and call that a prudent course of action. A rational person would say "we don't trust him, so lets deploy 25 inspectors and their support staff." Well these inspectors very neatly contained Saddam, with only one casualty and no civilian deaths. One inspector died in as a result of a car accident. Which is better?