Re: IRAQ sort of: Re: Tim May calls for nuking of D.C.

From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:39:37 MST

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: extropians-digest V8 #54"

    "Kai Becker" <kmb@kai-m-becker.de>

         Me:
    > > If WMD are ever used by Saddam or any other terrorist organization
    > > against America I expect they will be shipped just like any other
    > > package, by UPS or Federal Express.

    > And why should he be so stupid?

    Except for internal Iraqi politics Saddam has demonstrated he is very stupid
    indeed, that's why he's so dangerous.

    > It doesn't take 200,000 soldiers to maintain the pressure.

    200,000 soldiers would not be nearly enough if they did what you want and
    made it clear that they would never be used. The threat of war is the only
    thing that made Saddam let the inspectors back in and the longer they are
    not used the more hollow that threat will seem to him. When that happens the
    inspectors will be kicked out and we'll be right back where we started from.

    >The USA military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were
    >able to ensure the no flight zones for twelve years now.

    Yes. So what?

    >How much more would it take to extend this zone across the
    >whole country and have daily practice with AWACS,
    >U2 and other systems?

    I don't know or care because that would never make Saddam disarm. Saddam
    just LOVES his WMD, he has given up several hundred billion dollars in oil
    revenue over the last decade to keep them and thinks it's worth it. I think
    Saddam would rather die than give up his beloved WMD and some U2 flights
    will not faze him in the slightest.

                Me:
    >> Force? How?

    > Read my mail again:

    No need, I read it the first time and it's not like it was very deep and
    needed study. Saddam is a evil man, to get him to do the right thing you are
    going to have to force him and my question was how. I want specifics, what I
    read from you was little more than wish for peace love and happiness.

    > Ah, okay. But those weapons have been destroyed, right?

    Wrong.

    >Do you have the hard facts that Mr. Powell failed to present?

    Perhaps it is a language problem, perhaps the words "hard facts" has some
    strange meaning I am unaware of. The UN says the have something, Iraq admits
    to having it, but I must supply "hard facts" that they have it. I'm
    confused.

               John K Clark jonkc@att.net



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:42:57 MST