> Of course the US will have to pay those costs -- those troops are *US* > troops. Your troops, your money.
Jeroen, out of idle curiosity, I know you think that we sent those troops to the Middle East for the amusement value,
That is in fact not my opinion; I never stated that the US sent troops for the amusement value. How did you reach that (incorrect) conclusion?
1. Do you think that it would be a bad thing for Saddam Hussein to acquire nuclear weapons?
Yes. But then, I am opposed to nuclear weapons, period. I think it is also a bad thing that Israel already *has* nuclear weapons -- especially given the fact that Israel has an extremely agressive war hawk in power. Quite frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that sofar no mushroom cloud has appeared over Arafat's headquarters.
2. If you do, what would you do to stop him?
Try diplomacy first. If that doesn't work, try to get his own people to turn against him (food aid, medical aid, information). As a last resort, if everything else has failed, sent in a small Special Ops team to capture him. (Note: *capture*, not *kill* -- some of us might want to put him on trial.)
Launching a full-scale and very expensive war to get rid of one man is like trying to catch a mouse by burning down the house.
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
