From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 03:31:52 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Eliezer writes
> 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.)
>
I would put the probability of Saddam both having nukes and
using them against American cities at very near zero unless his
back is against the wall and we are slaughtering his people.
Then any leader might resort to desperate means. But in
peacetime there is nothing to gain and very much to lose from
actually using any nukes hypothetically gained against us or any
country in the region.
Who the hell is a pro? Since when do we trust the voices from
our government? Haven't they told us enough lies and switched
their story enough times for us to doubt that we can tell when
we are hearing what they believe is the truth vs simply hearing
what they believe will most mollify us to what they are
determined to do? When they believe what they are saying do we
have any real reason to trust the process and filters that lead
them to their conclusion? Should we trust them to do our
thinking for us and perhaps plunge us into unending hot war
simply because we distrust our own thinking and therefore
cop-out to trusting authority?
>
>>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 latter. More specifically the erosion of real rights and
safety of the citizens and a not very well considered or
executed campaign in Afghanistan and opening up the path to
endless war.
>
> The former did more damage to people, the latter did
> more damange to the United States.
>
If you count all the people then the latter did or will do far
more damage all around.
>
>>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.
>
Who is "debating" anything. This isn't some chess game debate
here. The point is not how people "should" feel. The point is
allow ourselves to be so totally given by our fear allows us to
be manipulated by those who are directing our course today. It
is not that we shouldn't feel fear but that we must engage our
hearts and minds to determine the best course regardless of our
fear.
> 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.
>
Saddam Hussein doesn't have a damn thing to do with 9/11. The
entire case attempting to tie him to the war on terror is very
weak. I don't believe that 9/11 is for a moment why the
administration is really determined to push us into this war. I
don't see how anyone can possibly believe that going into
invading a soevereign nation and forcing the change of its
government in the middle of an area of great unrest and distrust
(largely justified) of our motivations is going to in any way
whatsover lead to more safety and peace in the US or the world.
It is almost beyond belief to me that people could actually
swallow such a crock.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:19 MST