From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 19:33:54 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>
>
>
>>Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Who would you say is the greater threat to the
>>>United States (or to Americans): John Ashcroft
>>>or Saddam Hussein?
>>>
>>>
>>Ashcroft. Of course, I am evaluating them both as threats to the world,
>>since the US is in the world
>>
>>
>
>Come on Eli. Ashcroft is operating in an open society
>with some checks and balances (you will notice judges
>poking holes in his agenda left and right).
>
I also notice that some checks and balances are being weakened and/or
ignored by this administration. Vigilance to make sure they don't get
away with too much is certainly in order.
>Hussein
>on the other hand has directly caused the deaths of
>hundreds of thousands of people and has no real
>checks and balances within Iraq and precious few
>outside Iraq.
>
>
We have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
Madeline Albright said as much a while back. Exactly what threat is
one small nation even with an evil ruler compared to the one remaining
superpower bent on aggression at its sole discretion?
Are you kidding about no checks and balances outside Iraq? Were you
asleep during the last decade of sanctions and bombings of the country?
If Iraq did anything major outside its borders Saddam is quite aware
there would be tremendous hell to pay. But if we attack now, with no
good reason I might add , then he has far less of a deterrent against
more agressive action.
>I'd consider Rumsfeld a greater threat than Ashcroft
>because he doesn't have to behave under the same set
>of checks and balances that Ashcroft does.
>
>
That I would agree with outside the US. But Ashcroft is more of a
danger within the US.
>
>
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:18 MST