From: Extropian Agro Forestry Ventures Inc. (megao@sk.sympatico.ca)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 00:36:02 MDT
Only because the north american led world has the leading edge technology and
would not like to see technology turned to dust would I say OK let Saddam have
it.
In the arab context they, like the western world want a force to rally around.
USA has weapons of mass destruction, USSR has weapons of mass destruction
Maybe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
The inability of all the developed world to keep being the gang that can't shoot
straight is just too hard to believe.
This maybe is just plain silliness but suppose the business of war and making
money on war keeps nations allowing a certain number of looney tunes to go just
so free that a controlled chaos happens. We know that the Bios Group in
Sante-Fe NM
did such a study for nasdaq about 3 years ago (controlled collapse). Maybe
military planners do the same?
a lot of money has been taken out of the market by bigger players like hedge
funds
and currency traders this last year. Does anyone know where new investment
money corresponding to the money missing from the world's markets is showing
up?
If it can be found then no case can be made for my silly little war games
conspiracy theory. If it has vanished , then suppose that it is available to
fund those who want to fund world scale war games.
maybe i'm just sleepy and playing mind games but what if???
mj
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Eliezer writes
>
> > Saddam Hussein is a threat to the world chiefly because of how free and
> > open societies respond to him as an irritant. Ashcroft is a direct threat
> > to the Singularity; Saddam Hussein is an indirect threat who wouldn't be a
> > threat at all without the likes of Ashcroft.
>
> What would you guess the probability to be that
> Saddam Hussein has or will soon have an atomic
> bomb, and that such weapons as are at his
> disposal could end up being used against
> American cities? (Of course, I realize that
> you are an amateur as are all the rest of us
> on this list.)
>
> > Let's take 9/11 as an example. Which did more damage,
> > the loss of the World Trade Center or the massive social
> > reaction to the loss of the World Trade Center?
>
> The former did more damage to people, the latter did
> more damange to the United States.
>
> > It isn't true that we have nothing to fear but fear itself,
> > but certainly fear is doing a lot more damage than anything else.
>
> Debating policy is one thing, debating how people
> should feel is another. I totally agree with you
> that people should not feel so *personally*
> threatened. The odds of being victimized by an
> airplane hijacking or dying in the first one or
> two attacks on the U.S. from WMD is not large.
>
> I think that people are feeling that their nation
> is attacked, and it's those people who support the
> administration and an effort to get Saddam Hussein
> first.
>
> Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:19 MST