From: Jkr438@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 17:33:25 MDT
In a message dated 9/1/2002 6:08:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
On 1 Sep 2002 at 18:45, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
. . . doesn't belong to that same smug, snarky, snide, snotty and
supercilious inverted cult of anti- personality that I belong to? I wonder
what his problem is.
-Jake
His problem is that he is over-cautious about committing US troops, and
underestimating concerning the nuclear threat should we not. The problem is,
if he is wrong, the result is catastrophic. The cost benefit analysis
(probable human cost of conventionally toppling Saddam vs. likelihood that if
left in power, nuclear attack or blackmail by Saddam would result X human
cost of that devastating consequence) is clearly in favor of pre-emptive
regime change in Iraq as by far the more prudent course to pursue.
[Jake2] Hey, maybe you've hit on something with the cost/benefit analysis way
of thinking, I better add it to my toolbox and give it a whirl!! You know
what we could do even better, . . . if Iraq almost has a nuclear weapon, then
surely Iran definitely does, more of an economic/industrial base to work from
after all. So what we should do, since we are sending our troops in anyway,
we should get double duty out of the operation. . . we should invade both
Iran and Iraq. I mean we already have troops in Afghanistan on the other
side of Iran, we could just widen the operation there, and invade from Iraq
as well, . . . do a kind of pincer move. We wouldn't even have to wait to
control the cities in Iraq, I mean its pretty obvious that Saddam is going to
let everything outside the cities go quickly, that way at the same time that
we begin clamping down on Iraqi cities, we can launch an invasion of Iran
(another "axis of evil power") from the Iraqi countryside at the same time
that American forces which will have been building up in Afghanistan in the
meantime, shall launch an invasion of Iran from that side. I mean lets not
fool around here . . . do it right the first time, . . . or certainly should
I say more truthfully the second time.
Love,
Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:55 MDT