On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:49:48PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I conclude anti-war == pro-Saddam, your statement was wrong. > > It doesn't have to be. It could very well be based on the assumption > that, while Hussein is a horrible dictator, the cost of bringing him > down is so high, containment would be better. Containment means Saddam will stay in power with much higher probability than with war. That makes containment pro-Saddam, if you use my probability of remaining in power definition, which I think is a reasonable one. This is independent of whether containment is the better cost/benefit choice for the US, which is a different subject. > From all accounts, that was Bush's position before 9-11. I would not > accuse him of having being pro-Saddam. Was there anyone seriously proposing a war to remove Saddam between the start of election campaigning in 2000 and Sep. 2001? The reason I ask is that I don't think your comparison is apt unless Bush was specifically arguing AGAINST war to remove Saddam. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
