Samantha wrote:
> "Supposed to have produced" is the operative phrase."
I haven't researched the sources thoroughly, but I don't think
they would come up with numbers that accurate without it being
fairly reliable information.
> So where exactly is the huge worry comming out of Iraq?
I didn't say that there was -- I was simply using those
numbers of examples of how dangerous things could get
if any number of Islamic states decided that they wanted
to make "war" on the U.S.
The Russian stockpiles are *much* larger than Iraqs.
> But if, and it is a big IF, he is desperate enough to use these
> supposed weapons now, then what part did we ourselves play in
> making him that desperate? We created this guy and largely
> supplied him.
Hmmm.... As I recall during the Gulf war most of the weapons
the Iraqis had were Soviet.
This article is on "Saddam Hussein - his rise to power"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/newsid_216000/216328.stm
It does not seem to suggest that the U.S. played any important
role in creating him. He looks entirely like a self-made man
to me. If you can find some legitimate data that confirms
something like "U.S. foreign aid dollars were used to purchase
weapons used against the Iranians or the Kuwaitis" I'll be
happy to look at it but the article suggests that he was
anti-British and anti-West from the start.
> This is true. But the best way to avoid dying in a war is not
> to get into one. The second best way is not to prolong one
> unnecessarily or push more and more people into the enemy camp
> and increasingly inflame them.
We are in a war and we didn't start it. If you have listened to
bin Laden's statements he is stating plainly and clearly that
he intends to keep attacking until the U.S. pulls every single
U.S. military individual out of Saudi Arabia. He will presumably
then turn his terrorists on the Saudi Royal family. If that succeeds
he will then return to Saudi Arabia and likely become Saddam II.
Now during all of that oil prices will go through the roof.
If bin Laden becomes the Saddam of Saudi Arabia he could quite
well cut off oil entirely. Do you *remember* the oil embargos?
I do. That is why we got into the Persian Gulf War a decade ago.
Now, would you like to make the tradeoff between the number of
lives lost due to a failure to be able to pay heating bills
vs. the number that will be lost in an effort to capture this
guy and bring him to justice?
Just to keep in mind in the Gulf War, up against hundreds of
thousands of troops much better armed than an estimated 30,000
Taliban troops:
> The United States suffered 148 killed in action, 458 wounded,
> 121 killed in nonhostile actions.
> from: http://www.netwiz.net/~cryan/war.html
bin Laden & associates has already killed more than 30 times
as many of our citizens.
I'm not a war monger. I *am* a pragmatist. If you have a
solution that would not require going after bin Laden I
would be happy to listen to it.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT