On 5 Aug 2002 at 7:31, Hermit wrote:
>
> Let's make this simpler.
>
> The US possesses "weapons of mass destruction."
>
Yepperz and natch.
>
> The US has used "weapons of mass destruction"
>
The US has not used weapons of mass destruction, defined as
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, against Iraq, or, in fact,
against any country except Japan, and then only twice, to end WW II.
The only threat it has made to Iraq is also a promise; that if Iraq
employed WMD's against its coalition forces in the Gulf War, it would
receive a nuclear response.
>
> The US has threatened to use "weapons of mass destruction"
>
If adversaries did so first. The whole idea of mutually assured
destruction based deterrence was that all sides would forbear to use
such weapons because of the threat of massive retaliation.
>
> The US has an unstable and dangerous leader.
>
Your prefab opinion, and although I voted for Gore, I only consider
Bush militarily to be a danger against those who have attacked the US
(namely Osama Bin Laden's Al Quaeda), those who supported and
shielded them and thuse facilitated those attacks and who refused to
hand the terrorists over subsequent to the attacks (Namely the Afghani
Taliban, led by Mullah Omar), and those who publicly and transparently
plan to do so and are busily acquiring and developing WMD's for just
such a purpose (Saddam Hussein in Iraq).
>
> The US has targeted many national leaders individually (a terrorist
> action).
>
True, but not since the Church Commission has a US administration
attempted individual assassination (although one might argue that the
Libya bombing, after which Qaddafi moderated his terrorist-supporting
course, and the Afghan terrorist camp missile attack were close). Of
colurse, if you mean publicly criticise, every nation has done so. One
could just as easily argue that the British Royalty should be offed by the
catholic Church in reprisal for the assassination of Becket.
>
> The US sponsors terrorism and trains terrorists
>
Sadly, the US has trained some of those who subsequently became
members of right-wing juntas and death squads in South and Central
America. But that school is, after all, called the School of the Americas;
no Middle Eastern types trained there, and certainly no one was trained
there for operations against Iraq.
>
>The US is
> currently bombing nations on a regular basis
>
The US is dropping bombs on two areas; on Al Quaeda forces in
Afghanistan, with the full cooperation and support of Afghanistan's
Karzai government (although it's accidental bombing of civilians has
been both criticized and regretted), and upon missile and radar sites in
Iraq which coordinate attackes against Coalition aircraft enforcing no-
fly-zones in Northern and Southern Iraq so that Saddam Hussein is
deterred from massacring his own minority citizens, something he has
already done, both conventionally and with WMD's
>
> The US has threatened war
> on Iraq
>
For damn good reasons, and I outlined a whole bunch of them earlier.
It is to be a war to depose a bloodthirsty and power-mad sociopath
before he manages to go nuclear with his insanity. For the sake of the
world at large, it must succeed.
>
> The US has amassed troops and supplies able to be used in an
> attack on Iraq.
>
And is continuing to do so; it's called preparation.
>
> Iraq is completely justified on launching a preemptive attack,
> including, if he can obtain them, nuclear arms, on the United States.
> Should Iraq do this the US would have no grounds to retaliate, object
> or request asistance in reciprocating. After all, Iraq would simply
> have been engaging in a preemptive action.
>
Iraq would be engaging in an action that Saddam has threatened since
before the current discussions concerning his rule began; in fact, that
threat, along with his nasty historical habit of carrying through (or
attempting to) with his worst threats, is one of the main reasons that our
preemptive action must be undertaken.
>
> At least, this seems right according to "Deesian logic." If it needs
> correcting, please let me know.
>
Duly corrected.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Hermit
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=25955>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT