On 16 Aug 2002 at 13:20, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees 1] No US president want to be the one to stand in front of a
> nuclear bomb crater where a US city used to be and try to explain why,
> after 9/11, a fully prewarned administration took no action to forfend
> such a massive threat.
>
> [Hermit 2] Which is why we should nuke Israel, Korea, China, France,
> the CIS and the UK immediately?
>
> [Joe Dees 3] Unlike Saddam, they have not made the nuclear threats (or
> promises) that Saddam has made, nor have they used such weapons in the
> past against their own people and their neighbors. But you know that,
> and persist in putting forth exceedingly bad yet useful (for your
> propagandistic purposes) inflammatory analogies. It is one of your
> least endearing traits.
>
> [Hermit 4] I suspect that there are a number of weaknesses in the
> above (and I left Pakistan and India off the list).
>
Actually, we are in constant mediatory communication with the both of
them on the highest levels precisely to forfend such an exchange.
>
> Let me ask you a
> few questions to determine whether or not this is the case.[list]? 1)
> Does Iraq have a nuclear capability?
>
According to Senate testimony, it will have within three years.
>
> 2) Does Iraq have a delivery
> mechanism?
>
They don't have to possess ICBM's; any aircraft or ship or cargo
container will do.
>
>3) Has Iraq possessed nuclear weapons to deliver on
> anybody?
>
Not yet, but saddam has high hopes which he is actively pursuing.
>
> 4) Has Iraq used nuclear weapons?
>
Not yet, but he has promised to do so.
>
> 5) Has any country except
> the US used nuclear weapons?
>
Nope; ever since the US dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki 57 years ago, the US hasn't, either.
>
> 6) If the US did not particularly object
> to Iraq deploying chemical weapons that the US supplied and/or
> facilitated Iraq acquiring, and continued to deal with Iraq after she
> had deployed them on her neighbors, when Iraq was regarded as an ally,
> why should the US object to Iraq having them now if Iraq still has
> them?
>
The US did supply Iraq with precursor chemicals that were multiple-use;
when Iraq used them to gas its own people and those of Iran, the US
commerce in these precursors ceased, two decades ago.
>
> 7) How has it been shown that Saddam Hussein's interests are not
> purely regional?
>
Look at the region: any Iraqi conquest of that region would have grave
repercussions for the entire world.
>
> 8) Why does the US regard Saddam Hussein as a threat,
> when his neighbors regard him as a non-threat - or at worst as a
> lesser threat than either Israel or the US or regional
> destabilization?
>
I do not believe that they regard him as a lesser threat; instead, I
believe that they are careful in their public remarks, for they know that
Iraq is listening.
>
> 9) What evidence is there that Saddam Hussein poses a
> threat to the US or US interests if the US does not attack Saddam
> Hussein first?
>
His attempting to assassinate a former US president and his promise to
inflict a telling blow within our borders. Maybe Dick Armey's right and
he's just a blowhard, but it is not worth the risk of millions of US lives to
spin that revolver chamber and hope that the locking chamber is empty.
>
> 10) The countries most likely to use their nuclear
> warheads in a first strike attack are, in order (Bulletin of Atomic
> Scientists): US, India, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, China, France, CIS,
> UK. Where in this list would you put Iraq if Iraq had access to
> nuclear materials?
>
Number One; it has pledged to visitate destruction upon the state of
Israel and upon the US.
>
>11) What evidence do you have that Iraq has any
> WMDs?
>
Saddam has used them, and subsequently played shell games with
spied-upon inspectors before expelling them from Iraq four years ago.
>
>12) What evidence do you have that Iraq supports terrorism?
>
The attempted assassination of a former US president qualifies, I'm
shure. And attacking Israel with SCUD missiles during the Gulf War
when Israel was a noncombatant nation also qualifies.
>
> 13)
> If evil is measured in lives cost, how would you rate the lives taken
> by Saddam in comparison to the 1 to 2 million Iraqi deaths allegedly
> caused by the US?
>
I would also lay those at the feet of the UN mandate noncompliant
Saddam.
>
>14) Given that the US has already allegedly been
> responsible for 1 to 2 million Iraqi deaths, how many American lives
> would be a fair exchange?
>
I do not accept that as a given, but as a coalition embargo in response
to Iraqi noncompliance with UN resolutions concerning ceasing its
WMD programs and allowing unfettered inspectors to verify same
(although they did succeed in discovering and destroying huge
stockpiles of Iraqi chemical weapons).
>
> 15) What amount of damage avoidance
> justifies the minimum direct cost of $ 140 billion (and indirectly is
> likely to cost much more in terms of disruption of oil supplies and
> loss of global trade) that a war with Iraq is likely to impose?
>
The prevention of a regional nuclear exchange most likely involving
both Iraq and Israel, plus the prevention of an Iraqi nuclear terror attack
upon the US.
>
>16)
> How many years do you think it is going to take to pay for the over
> budget expenditure to date on military/security as a consequence of
> 911?
>
Less than it would cost to passively absorb continued Al Quaeda terror
attacks (the property loss alone in 'just' the 9/11 atrocity was in excess
of 20 billion dollars, and that expense is much less than the total cost of
the attacks to the world economy).
>
>17) How long do you think the US will thrive as a nation if she
> continues to expend sums greatly in excess of her income on attempting
> to preempt every possible imaginable threat?
>
Longer than she would if she took no action and was content to say,
"oops, miscalculation" in the aftermath of an Iraqi nuclear terror attack.
>
>18) How much more
> military/security expenditure do you think is required to tip the
> World (not just the US) from a recession into a depression?
>
More than will be involved in defanging that Iraqi viper.
>
> 19) How
> much longer do you think that troops are going to be required in areas
> where the US has already intervened?
>
We should stay in Afghanistan until they have completed the
establishment of a secure and viable democratic regime; IOW, as long
as our supportive and facilitating presence is needed and requested by
them. We have played a securing role on the Korean border for a half
century; while I do not think that our assistance will be needed that long
in Afghanistan, few would argue that our Korean committment has done
anything but stabilize the region and ensure its security.
>
> 20) What do you think the monthly
> budget for these troops runs at?
>
If it continued for a hundred years, still less than the cost of a hydrogen
bomb (which can be achieved simply by strapping hydrogen tanjs onto
a uranium or plutonium nuke) detonating in New York Harbor would run.
>
> 21) Do you think that the world will
> be made safer or riskier by the US attacking Iraq?
>
Much, much safer.
>
> 22) Do you think
> that the world is a better or worse place now that the US has become a
> rogue state, where a rogue state is defined as one which shows a
> pattern of behavior of disregarding/breaking/ignoring laws and
> treaties?
>
Rhetorical question; there is a vast difference between breaking
treaties, refusing to renew them when their expiration time has passed,
and refusing to sign onto them. Iraq is a rogue nation, precisely
because their dictatorial ruler, Saddam Hussein, is a rogue. Both they
and the rest of the globe will be immeasureably better off without him at
the Iraqi helm.
>
> 23) Do you think that the world is a better or worse place
> now that other nations are doing the same using the same reasons that
> the US has done?
>
You'll have to clarify what the US has done that other nations are now
doing; if it is liberating countries from aggrandizing dictators perfectly
willing to nurse the barrel of the nuclear gun, it is an example for others
to follow.
>
> 24) What evidence do you have that the world will be
> a better safer place after destroying Iraq some more?
>
If we leave him in power long enough for him to acquire and detonate
the only evidence that would be acceptable to you, it will be too late for
too many.
>
> And by the way, despite what you seem to think, propaganda is not an
> insult
>
I know; 'work is freedom' was just a cutesy phrase, right?
>
> ----
> 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=26086>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT