On 13 Aug 2002 at 23:59, Andy Brice wrote:
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> > > Unethical indeed. But also a sign of desperation and hopelessness.
> > > Apart from terrorism or complete submission to the Israeli state,
> > > what other choices do they have? Israel has backed the Palestians
> > > into a corner.
> > >
> > I think that recently it is largely the other way around; the
> > Palestinian militants, through 70+ suicide bombings in the past two
> > years, have forced the Israeli government into taking the defensive
> > measures that it has. If the Palestinian violence would stop, I'm
> > quite sure that the restrictions would be eased, and soon.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'defensive measures' - bulldozing houses
> and attacking apartments blocks with helicopter gunships? I can only
> see that creating more hatred and a new generation of terrorists. Its
> very difficult to defend against someone who is prepared to blow
> himself up.
>
Bulldozing the houses of the families of the suicide bombers who get 50
grand per from Saddan Hussein is one way to temper the bebfit with
some cost. If a bomb facxtory is inhabiting a section of that apartment
block, a helcopter-launched missile is a good way to get rid of it without
endangering Israeli soldiers' lives.
> > >
> > > I would suggest that if the USA wants to confront a state in the
> > > middle east that is threatening the stability of the region,
> > > oppressing vast numbers of people and has ready access to weapons
> > > of mass destruction, then it should confront Israel before it
> > > confronts Iraq. Iraq has already had its infrastructure completely
> > > destroyed and I am unconvinced about its ability to threaten
> > > anyone, especially if the UN inspectors are let back in.
> > >
> > But they won't be, it seems; saying that they might be appears to
> > have been just a diversionary propaganda ploy by Saddam Hussein.
>
> Saddam may be playing games, or he may not. But I don't think the
> offer should be dismissed out of hand. Currently the dialog seems to
> be along the lines of: USA: Iraq is building weapons of mass
> destruction. She won't let UN inspectors in. So we will invade. Iraq:
> We have decided to let UN weapons inspectors in. USA: We don't believe
> you. We're going to invade anyway.
>
Kofi Annan does not believe him, either.
> > >
> > > Or could be that the USA's main interest is in securing Iraq's oil
> > > reserves?
> > >
> > Nope. There is plenty of oil to go around, especially with the new
> > Caspian sea fields coming on line soon. The US just doesn't want
> > Iraq to choke off Saudi Arabia's oil exports.
>
> Plenty of oil to go around. I think thats the first time I have ever
> heard that said! So what is the real reason to invade Iraq? If the USA
> thinks it has a legitimate reason to topple the regime in Iraq then it
> should get a UN mandate first.
>
Saddam's ongoing effots to obtain nuclear weapons he has already
shown the prerequisite insanity to use. And technically, the US has the
right to enforce the UN inspection mandate which Saddam continues to
flout.
>
> Andy Brice
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT