RE: virus: On war (with additions)

Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 10:50:28 MDT

On 22 Aug 2002 at 11:32, wrote:

> On 22 Aug 2002 at 16:10, Dylan Sunter wrote:
> > considering that it is widely believed that Saddam hussein has
> > stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, it is an interesting
> > point why these have never been used against either US or Israeli
> > targets.
> >
> > They have clearly been used in the past against the Kurds,
> > regardless of whether he still has them. This begs the simple
> > question of WHY have these never been used against these ovbious
> > targets?
> >
> > delivery of chem/bios is a lot simpler than delivery of a nuke.
> > saddam has the ability to reach israel with Scuds, so why hasnt he
> > ever loaded them with chems or bios?
> >
> > there are a number of reasons, but one in particular makes more
> > sense. For all that he is not a nice man, and given that he is a
> > meglomaniac nutter with expansionist tendancies (much like the
> > current US commander in chief I feel, but this isnt the issue) and a
> > murderous tendancy towards israelis and americans, WHY OH WHY OH WHY
> > has he not even effectively tried?
> >
> > Is it because, fruitcake that he is, saddam isnt completely insane,
> > and knows that an attack with WMD would simply result in counter
> > attact? You cant run an irradiated country very well.
> >
> > Are you suggesting therefore that the minute he gets a nuke he will
> > use it?
> >
> > The fact is that there has only ever been one nation which has used
> > nukes, and that was unprovoked by a first strike with WMD. So when
> > the US has nukes (and yes, im not leaving out the others too) they
> > are a "nuclear deterrant" but when nations not allied have them,
> > they are "Weapons of Mass Destruction", a name which provokes a much
> > more fearful response.
> >
> > So, Mr Dees, you and you beloved president (and Mr blair too) can
> > basically get yourselves off, you've been a laugh, but this is
> > really really serious shit, and I for one have a major problem with
> > anyone with the belligerance and lack of intellect that the current
> > president has having their finger on a button, but telling the world
> > how to run their own nations.
> >
> > As john lennon said "its all getting a little bit serious now..."
> >
The reason he didn't used weapons of that kind against coalition
forces in the Gulf War was indeed because of a message
communicated to him promising, in no unceertain terms, a 'devastating
response' should he be foolhardy enough to do so. However, although
missiles fired are traceable back to their launch points, thus limiting the
deniability of catastrophic amounts of chemical weapons, biological and
nuclear weapons may be delivered by other less traceable means, such
as ships or cargo containers in the case of nukes, and even more
various ways in the case of bioweapons. It is likely that, even after
perpetrating such an attack, he would depend upon people like some
denizens that inhabit this list demanding absolute proof that a WMD
attack was facilitated by Iraq or that a WMD weapon was supplied to a
terror group by Saddam Hussein before a massive response could be
launched, and thus hope to evade or elide retribution. Of course, here
his hope would be forlorn, but he has severely miscalculated vis-a-vis
the US before, and his animus towards the US does little to clarify his
judgment policies, plus, as he gets older, and especially if he discovers
any terminal medical condition, surviving such an action may become
less important that a legacy as a modern-day Saladin (whom he idolizes
and styles himself after, and who was born in Saddam's home city of
Tikrit), the first Muslim to employ nukes against the hated infidels. It is
certainly doubtful after his ignominious defeat during the Gulf War that
he would ever again seriously entertain the massive army conventional
option. And it's not like concern for the people of Iraq would ever stay
his hand. The longer the US waits, the more dangerous and costly it
will be to oust him; it should be done sooner rather than later for the
benefit of all, including those in Iraq suffering under his murderous,
iron-heeled rule.

 Regards. Dylan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-
> []On > Behalf Of
> Sent: 21 August 2002 20:02 To: > Subject: Re:virus:
> On war > > > On 21 Aug 2002 at 14:33, wrote: > > > [Joe
> Dees] > > I, for one, am not prepared to wait for the mushroom cloud
> to rise > > above New Your harbor in order to salve your need for a
> basis; an > > ounce of prevention is worth a megaton of cure. > > >
> > [rhinoceros] They could just wait for two and a half years, with >
> > surveilance and everything, and see how it goes. (Didn't they say >
> > that Saddam will have da bomb ready in three years?) In this way, >
> > much less people would see Bush and his advisors as mad(wo)men > >
> attacking just on a hunch. > > > > [Jake] Good point Rhino.
> Additionally we should also consider the > > fact that having a bomb
> and delivering it are two different things. > > It is highly
> improbable that even were he to build a few nuclear > > devices that
> he could actually bring about the mushroom cloud over > > New York
> harbor, as Joe overblown rhetoric suggests. Apparently Joe > > thinks
> Saddam has some sort of teleportation device that will > > immediately
> deliver the bomb to us upon its completion. > > > Nope; just a ship or
> a cargo container. > > > > -Jake >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT