From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 02:36:48 MDT
[Joe Dees] The threat of terror attacks must be forfended against, or 9/11's happen, or worse. In our new post-WTC world, where a small group of transnational terrorists can cause great catastrophe without significant prior warnings such as troop movements, etc., and then disappear either in the cataclysm or immediately following it, the only effective defence is pre-emption.
<snip>
These are the points that Henry Kissinger so ably made, and which you, or anyone else here, have so far failed to address.
[Hermit] And when you are wrong? What does that make you? Ah yes, the aggressor against whom preemption is required. But when you are a small country being threatened by the US you need to work carefully. And then attacks like "911s happen - or worse."
I long ago suggested that your arguments could equally be used to justify us bombing Washington oiurselves. Now you are at it again - justifying why others should be able to bomb Washington with impunity.
Apropos of something, Libya and Iran are both seeking nuclear weapons and it is the considered opinion of those knowledgeable on the subject that Libya will acquire a nuclear capability long before Iraq has a chance of doing so. (And their development is occurring in bunkers designed to withstand nuclear attack). And of course, the US did attempt to assassinate Gadhafi, and instead killed his daughter - so according to the reasoning you have espoused here on Bush Senior, Gadhafi would be perfectly justified in attacking the US.
So, does this mean that the US should attack Libya next? Or Iran? Or Israel? After all, we know that Israel has "weapons of mass destruction". But then, we do too. And as Gadhafi said "we demanded the dismantling of Israel's weapons of mass destruction, otherwise the Arabs have the right to be equipped with the same weaponry." (Al Jazeera TV 2002-03-25) And what exactly is wrong with this argument? And if this argument is correct, what does it do to your impassioned demands for attacking Iraq - without the mandate which Jiang Zemin and Putin have both indicated appears undesirable and unnecessary. In company with most of the population of Europe who, according to some recent polls, consider Bush and Sharon more of a threat to world peace than Hussein. What makes you think they are wrong and you are right?
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26430>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:56 MDT