[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.
---- 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;threadid=26397>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:21 MDT