<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Davos Newbies Home</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davosnewbies.com/2002/09/13/davos-newbies-home/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davosnewbies.com/2002/09/13/davos-newbies-home/</link>
	<description>A year-round Davos of the mind, written since 1999 by Lance Knobel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:38:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Carnell</title>
		<link>http://www.davosnewbies.com/2002/09/13/davos-newbies-home/comment-page-1/#comment-225</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Carnell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davosnewbies.com/?p=737#comment-225</guid>
		<description>Dave Winer&#039;s view of Iraq is, of course, almost identical to U.S. think about Al Qaeda pre-9/11. Yes, it was a threat, but it restricted itself to attacking isolated embassies and American military targets in the Third World.

As Tony Blair pointed out, if he and Bush had come out before 9/11 and said eliminating Al Qaeda was of pre-eminent importance, they would have faced largely the same reaction from the anti-Iraq invastion contingent.

What has changed is that now we know too well the price of complancency and just assuming that our enemies will act tomorrow as they did yesterday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave Winer&#8217;s view of Iraq is, of course, almost identical to U.S. think about Al Qaeda pre-9/11. Yes, it was a threat, but it restricted itself to attacking isolated embassies and American military targets in the Third World.</p>
<p>As Tony Blair pointed out, if he and Bush had come out before 9/11 and said eliminating Al Qaeda was of pre-eminent importance, they would have faced largely the same reaction from the anti-Iraq invastion contingent.</p>
<p>What has changed is that now we know too well the price of complancency and just assuming that our enemies will act tomorrow as they did yesterday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Campbell</title>
		<link>http://www.davosnewbies.com/2002/09/13/davos-newbies-home/comment-page-1/#comment-226</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Campbell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davosnewbies.com/?p=737#comment-226</guid>
		<description>I couldn&#039; agree more. And I think that is the chief reason that there is not a highly vocal debate on the issue. The conscensus opinion seems to be that we should try to find diplomatic solutions first and if that doesn&#039;t work, then attack Iraq. Not sure why Dave feels the way he does, since Saddam has already gassed one village...

Bob
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn&#8217; agree more. And I think that is the chief reason that there is not a highly vocal debate on the issue. The conscensus opinion seems to be that we should try to find diplomatic solutions first and if that doesn&#8217;t work, then attack Iraq. Not sure why Dave feels the way he does, since Saddam has already gassed one village&#8230;</p>
<p>Bob</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

