In article , Dave Hinz says...

Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.

Which is more dangerous, spending billions of dollars to get us
to stop attacking us, or not spending the money to get them
to stop attacking us?

Because honestly the two approaches seem to have about the
same effect. They're still attacking us. Our war has
failed.

A pragmatist would say why spend the money?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================