On 5 Sep 2002 at 18:11, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [rhinoceros 1]
> No, Mowlam's theory is that a USA military force will be permanently
> stationed in Saudi Arabia and control it, irregardless of what happens
> to Iraq.
>
> [Joe Dees 2]
> His theory is that such would happen EVEN IF Saddam eschews the use of
> nukes, and that Saddam indeed would not do so; if Saddam indeed does
> use nukes, his theory is ipso facto falsified, regardless of any
> subsequent US action.
>
> [rhinoceros 3]
> That theory is good enough to have its first falsification test this
> winter -- not in three years and not in two and a half years -- before
> Saddam has any chance to develop nuclear weapons and the ability and
> the will to use them. Moreover, it is based on the fact that the USA
> will go to war anyway, as becomes evident from the military
> preparations and movements, and it tries to rationalize the reasons.
> To do so, it argues based on the alleged interests of the parts
> involved and not on a reaction to an alleged insane behavior which
> realistically would be against such interests.
>
> So, although Mowlam's theory could still be false, it makes more sense
> than Cheney's theory, which is based on eventualities -- not
> probabilities -- and has been constructed in such a way that cannot be
> really falsified.
>
The fact is that the pre-emptive exigency is based upon past aggressive
behavior by Saddam Hussein (vis-a-vis both Iran and Kuwait), his lack of
concern for human life (use of chemical weapons on both Iranian soldiers
and Kurdish civilians), his record of the pursuit of nuclear weapone going
back decades, his messianic Saladin-complex, and his a history of tragic
miscalculation. That the US will conventionally pre-empt his obtaining
weapons which it would be a global hazard for the likes of him to possess
follows quite logically from such concerns. The tanks are headed not to
Saudi Arabia, which has refused to allow US staging of an oncursion into
Iraq, but into neighboring Kuwait, ostensibly for a joint training exercise,
although I harbor no doubts as to their dual purpose. Should the
populace of Saudi Arabia, upon the advent of a US incursion into Iraq,
revolt (a possibility that is beyond US control) and the US is asked in by
the Sauds to stabilize matters, it is a good question whether or not they
would relinquish control to the House of Saud once again; I happen to
believe for credibility's sake that we would, although possibly at the price
of some reforms, for if we didn't, no other country would ever feel safe
requesting our interventional help. Of course, a grateful House of Saud
would almost certainly stabilize petroprices at a low level for a significant
period following such US assistance.
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26397>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:21 MDT