On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:59:00PM -0600, Horn, John wrote: > > From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 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. > > By that logic, would containment of the Soviet Union during the Cold > War be pro-Soviet?
If someone had a feasible plan to overthrow the Soviets quickly by a "hot" war with high probability of success and relatively low casualties, and someone else opposed it (opting for containment), then I would tend to call them pro-Soviet. But the comparison is so far-fetched, not the least of which because of the nuclear difference, that it doesn't seem worthwhile to compare them. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
