> Dana wrote: > huh. I seem to remember being roundly flamed for suggesting it might > not be a good idea. Here. >
1.) Let's all agree: you were flamed because it's fun to flame each other. 2.) You are mistaken about the reason for the flame. The group-think wisdom at the time was, "Hussein is a terrorist who's going to nuke us so take him out no matter the cost." 3.) There were multiple sources and including dept of defense war games that said this would be stupid. Purely from the (faux) security perspective the choices were this: A.) Keep Hussein in the box and hope we can seal it up tight enough that no crap gets out. B.) Risk cleaning out the box but in the process destroying the box and the means to clean out other boxes. In other words, the warning, even given you buy the security threat, was that we'd eliminate one threat but create many more while at the same time taking on a charity case. Which, of course, is exactly what's happened. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:219901 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
