Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:14:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > It won't get to that point.
> > > I remember Ronald Reagan making a speech about the Empire of Evil (then, the
> > > USSR), which had WoMD and could try to launch them anytime, so he proposed
> > > SDI. The thing is, the Soviet Union had *no intention* of starting a war:
> > > even those hardliners at the Politburo *knew* that MAD was the best defense
> > > for both sides of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War!
> > >
> > > And that's exactly what will grant us security.
> >
> > What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no
> > location to destroy?
>
> Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a
> loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective
> insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq,
> which is largely urbanized - Baghdad is a rather large city, as you may know.
Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a
nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and
perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to
denotate one (thus SH having his dirty work done for him).
Mike's point is that the enemy is not a nation state, but rather
_territory-less_ religious fanatics from (and supported by) many states. The
only way to prevent terrorism is to deal HARSHLY with states who would and do
support them.
The people of Iraq should be asking themselves: Do I *really* support Saddam
Hussein enough to undertake a war which I am sure to loose at a possibly
horrific cost? Because the fact is that if SH were to be deposed (internally),
the case for war against Iraq would be largely defused.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) SH does not have a nuke. If he did, do you think he'd trust OBL with it??? (...) Is Bush not a "religious fanatic". Does he not support terrorism? Why else would he have "pardoned" Orlando Bosch? See: (URL) to the justice department in George (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Well, if this is the motivation behind the war, then go beat up yourselves. That controversial commercial about that guy filling up his SUV is dead on--the truth hurts and you Yankees don't want to hear it. Come up with a coherent foreign (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) You can turn that the other way around: even Saddam is clever enough to know he cannot rely in such a lunatic as OBL. Saddam has managed to keep power for so long due to a careful choice of allies; he is well aware OBL cannot be controlled! (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq, which is largely (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
