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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (190934)	12/29/2006 7:15:45 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793914

The reason I'm not so keen on killing Saddam is that it stops him saying things which might be very interesting. For example, just what did he think was going on with April Glaspie and why did he think it a good idea to invade Kuwait? Oh, sure, people will say the history is written. But maybe it isn't. What about all those WMDs? When people are too keen to silence somebody, I wonder what that somebody might have to say which others prefer not to be said. On the other hand, I wouldn't want my taxes going to keep him alive. But if his family or friends are happy to pay, that would be reasonable. Perhaps a historian could be given access to him and as long as he talks and what he says can be cross-checked or is otherwise useful, he stays alive. If the historian/investigators get sick of waiting for him to talk and then hang him. Swap his knowledge for his survival. Say, one day for an hour of good information. Or some such. Mqurice