On 1 Sep 2002 at 19:33, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/1/2002 6:08:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> On 1 Sep 2002 at 18:45, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> . . . doesn't belong to that same smug, snarky, snide, snotty and
> supercilious inverted cult of anti- personality that I belong to? I
> wonder what his problem is.
>
> -Jake
>
> His problem is that he is over-cautious about committing US troops,
> and underestimating concerning the nuclear threat should we not. The
> problem is, if he is wrong, the result is catastrophic. The cost
> benefit analysis (probable human cost of conventionally toppling
> Saddam vs. likelihood that if left in power, nuclear attack or
> blackmail by Saddam would result X human cost of that devastating
> consequence) is clearly in favor of pre-emptive regime change in Iraq
> as by far the more prudent course to pursue.
>
> [Jake2] Hey, maybe you've hit on something with the cost/benefit
> analysis way of thinking, I better add it to my toolbox and give it a
> whirl!! You know what we could do even better, . . . if Iraq almost
> has a nuclear weapon, then surely Iran definitely does, more of an
> economic/industrial base to work from after all. So what we should do,
> since we are sending our troops in anyway, we should get double duty
> out of the operation. . . we should invade both Iran and Iraq. I mean
> we already have troops in Afghanistan on the other side of Iran, we
> could just widen the operation there, and invade from Iraq as well, .
> . . do a kind of pincer move. We wouldn't even have to wait to control
> the cities in Iraq, I mean its pretty obvious that Saddam is going to
> let everything outside the cities go quickly, that way at the same
> time that we begin clamping down on Iraqi cities, we can launch an
> invasion of Iran (another "axis of evil power") from the Iraqi count-
> ryside at the same time that American forces which will have been
> building up in Afghanistan in the meantime, shall launch an invasion
> of Iran from that side. I mean lets not fool around here . . . do it
> right the first time, . . . or certainly should I say more truthfully
> the second time.
>
> Love,
>
> Jake
>
As far as we can tell, Iran neither has nor has been pursuing nuclear
weapons, nor do they seem to be interested in nuclear power at all.
They DO, after all, have all that oil they can use for energy. Plus, the
regime in Iran seems to be progressively moderating under popular
pressure from the majority of the people as a whole, and the vast
majority of the young. The more moderate president Khatami's star is
on the rise while the power of the hardline cleric Ayatollah Khameini is
waning. There has recently been unprecedented criticism, from within
Iranian halls of power, of what has become of the revolution there. We
should engage in warfare only when we have to, not because we can; if
things get more dangerous and threatening in Iran, we would still be in
a pincer position to deal with them should it be required. I will be
sending three short essays I found on the growing internal criticism
tendencies in Iran to buttress my contention.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:21 MDT