On 7 Sep 2002 at 13:52, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2002 at 2:36, Hermit wrote:
>
> >
> > [Joe Dees] The threat of terror attacks must be forfended against,
> > or 9/11's happen, or worse. In our new post-WTC world, where a
> > small group of transnational terrorists can cause great catastrophe
> > without significant prior warnings such as troop movements, etc.,
> > and then disappear either in the cataclysm or immediately following
> > it, the only effective defence is pre-emption. <snip> These are the
> > points that Henry Kissinger so ably made, and which you, or anyone
> > else here, have so far failed to address.
> >
> > [Hermit] And when you are wrong? What does that make you? Ah yes,
> > the aggressor against whom preemption is required. But when you are
> > a small country being threatened by the US you need to work
> > carefully. And then attacks like "911s happen - or worse."
> >
> If you are a small country consumed by a desire to atomically tweak
> the cat's moustache, you will do so clandestinely, anyway; it is to be
> expected that the cat will either pre-emptively defend itself or
> nuclearly annihilate you if you should succeed in evading its notice
> prior to the attack. Which would YOU prefer? I would greatly prefer
> conventional pre-emption to nuclear annihilation, for us and for them.
> I'm just funny that way. Of course, nuclear pyros such as yourself
> wanna see the big boom. > > I long ago suggested that your arguments
> could equally be used to > justify us bombing Washington ourselves.
> Now you are at it again - > justifying why others should be able to
> bomb Washington with impunity. > Yes, you ridiculously and ludicrously
> did, making less sense than Scatflinger in the process. And the only
> threat Washington is posing is against thse who are already conspiring
> to attack them, and others are - or have you forgotten 9/11 less than
> a year later? The US cannot pre-empt a planned attack or an
> attainment of nukes which they have not detected, which of course
> means, considering the seriousness of cross-border pre- emption, that
> prior to such pre-emptive moves, the US will have gained substantial
> evidence of same. You don't think those envoys are going to Russia,
> China, France and Germany to play tiddlywinks, now do you? The
> argument that the US may not be able to detect all the threats out
> there is no argument whatsoever for doing nothing to pre-emptively
> deal with threats that HAVE genuinely been detected. The US will no
> longer assume the thumb-up-the-ass posture and wait for the visitation
> of the next cataclysm. > > Apropos of something, Libya and Iran are
> both seeking nuclear weapons > and it is the considered opinion of
> those knowledgeable on the subject > that Libya will acquire a nuclear
> capability long before Iraq has a > chance of doing so. (And their
> development is occurring in bunkers > designed to withstand nuclear
> attack). And of course, the US did > attempt to assassinate Gadhafi,
> and instead killed his daughter - so > according to the reasoning you
> have espoused here on Bush Senior, > Gadhafi would be perfectly
> justified in attacking the US. > The only country to use WMD's against
> their neighbors in the last half- century has been Iraq. They are
> also the only country that has used them against their own citizens (a
> provision prohibiting that was not even included in the treaty on
> chemical weapons, because it seemed unthinkable). Qadaffi has
> moderated much in the last few years, as opposed to Saddam Hussein.
> And we are hoping that the more moderate and popular Khatami
> presidency will wax in influence as the influence of the hardline
> Khameini-led clerics wanes - but if it doesn't, and they do indeed
> begin to pose a much greater nuclear threat to others, we will be in a
> much better geographic position to conventionally pre-empt such a
> threat if we have already dealt with Iraq, and have troops there. > >
> So, does this mean that the US should attack Libya next? Or Iran? Or >
> Israel? After all, we know that Israel has "weapons of mass >
> destruction". But then, we do too. And as Gadhafi said "we demanded >
> the dismantling of Israel's weapons of mass destruction, otherwise the
> > Arabs have the right to be equipped with the same weaponry." (Al >
> Jazeera TV 2002-03-25) And what exactly is wrong with this argument? >
> I do not think that at this point that Libya would use them
> offensively against Israel or the US, nor do I think Qadaffi would
> give them to terrorists, but we are indeed monitoring the situation at
> his hardened underground facilities (which aren't hardened enough to
> withstand a determined US strike should same be deemed necessary).
> The fact is that Israel has had such weapons at Dimona for some time
> now, and has not resorted to them, even when attacked by her neighbors
> (it has ably enough defended itself by conventional means), nor is it
> anticipated that Israel would do so unless its very existence were
> direly threatened. It has handled its stewardship of such weapons
> responsibly. Such can not be even remotely assumed of the likes of
> Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly demonstrated his recklessness,
> irresponsibility, aggression and bloodthirstiness to the world at
> large. In fact, Israel rightly views Saddam Hussein's obtaining of
> nuclear weapons as just such a dire threat to their existence, and
> that is why it pre-emptively took out Iraq's French- assisted Baghdad
> nuclear facility prior to it's going on line, to wide condemnation at
> the time, but great appreciation thereafter, which has only grown with
> the passage of time. Had they not done so, the self-styled Saladinic
> Saddam Hussein would've been able to defend his annexation of Kuwait
> with nukes; should he get them now, what's to deter him from once
> again occupying Kuwait, and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula as well?
> There is nothing strategially critical for Libya to occupy, and Iran
> would have to go through iraq to do so (which is why we made the
> horrific mistakes of supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war and
> not dealing decisively with him during the Gulf War). > > And if this
> argument is correct, what does it do to your impassioned > demands for
> attacking Iraq - without the mandate which Jiang Zemin and > Putin
> have both indicated appears undesirable and unnecessary. In > company
> with most of the population of Europe who, according to some > recent
> polls, consider Bush and Sharon more of a threat to world peace > than
> Hussein. What makes you think they are wrong and you are right? > We
> shall see what positions those nations hold once they are privy to the
> evidence we shall show them. As far as Europe goes, it was US force
> that permitted them to live in their Elysian bubble, and they have
> done little to protect or preserve it, even in their own Serbian back
> yard, depending upon the reviled barbarian US to once again respond to
> their pleadings to pull their fat out of the fire. History - the
> history of European appeasement and denial and its horrific results -
> convince me that they are wrong once again, just as the history of
> Saddam Hussein does, and the impeccable logic of Henry Kissinger,
> among the vast predominance of specialists in the field.
>
Two further predictions; (1) the UN Security Council realizes that its
credibility as a global moderating force is at stake; if, upon presentation
of strong evidence supporting the US contentions, they fail to act vis-a-
vis an Iraq that has flauted UN WMD and inspector mandates, they lose
all claim to being able to fulfill such a role. Subsequent to the
presentation of the US evidence, I see the Security Council setting a
deadline for the return of UN inspectors to Iraq, even though the
hardest sell may be France, since I believe that its nuclear hands are
dirty vis-a-vis Iraq, and that UN weapons inspectors might well discover
same. Subsequent to such a resolution, Saddam Hussein has a difficult
decision to make: to allow the inspectors unfettered access to his
country, discovering what he has to hide (and I think the evidence
presented will show that he has plenty to hide), or to balk and face an
eventual regime change, with the passive acquiescence, if not the
active support, of the other security council members (with the
exception of the UK, which will actively participate).
(2) the US Congress, presented with much of the same evidence, will
vote to authorize such action.
Thus the bush administration will have gone the responsible,
consensus-building route, and made their case to both the US
Congress and the UN Security Council prior to any action taken, as the
Congress and the world community have requested.
>> > ---- >
> 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=26430>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:22 MDT