From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 12:09:58 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: virus: On war
> joedees@bellsouth.net RE: virus: On war Thu 2002/08/22 06:32 PM wrote
> <q>
> 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 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 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, 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'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.
> </q>
>
> [Blunderov]
> Your prescience is striking. Not only do you seem to have a deep insight
> into the intimate character and intentions of Hussein, but this insight
> is sufficient for you (and Bush) to presume to predict the future as if
> it were as ineluctable as a Greek fate.
I think this is unfair Blunderlov. Joe is mapping out a possible scenario,
one that is prudent to avoided by taking action in the present. His scenario
is plausible and the risk from Saddam is considerable. It is too
considerable to ignore and containment has failed. What options are you
offering?
> I must remind you that in previous post you characterized Hussein as
> "insane". Yet you later posted an article in which it was made clear
> that he is not. I asked you for a source for the "threats" that you have
> repeatedly asserted that Hussein has uttered. Nada.
Forget what Saddam has said, what he has done and continues to do are
telling enough.
> It seems to me that you are deeply afflicted with some malignant meme.
> Perhaps it is "terror"?
It seems to me that you are deeply afflicted with some malignant meme.
Perhaps it is "ad hominem"?
> At least that would explain why a normally rigorously rational person
> should become so unamenable to even the most telling arguments.
>
> This is not a good time to panic.
Joe is not panicking. Your arguments are not succeeding in convincing him.
This does not mean he is insane or irrational, it may mean your argument are
weak or faulty.
Regards
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT