I think a number of people were actually quite offended. Flames can be fun but that wasn't one of the fun ones. But whatever.
On 11/7/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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:219907 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
