From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 22:12:27 MDT
Samantha 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.
If I estimated the probability the way you do, we would
probably then agree.
> Who the hell is a pro?
I consider anyone a pro who analyses this question and ones
like it for a living. Good examples are pentagon planners,
writers, and some politicians.
> 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?
Yes, unfortunately their voices are not any more
authoritative than voices from certain politicians
and political analysts. I claim that they *cannot*
be more authoritative because all such conclusions
about Saddam Hussein's ambitions, righteousness,
and inclinations are affected by one's political
ideology. In other words, equally "credible" analysts
from different sides of the political spectrum will
reach different conclusions. Nonetheless, such people
are worth listening to if you really are interested,
say, in what the probability is that Saddam Hussein
will attack anyone with WMD.
> > 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.
Debates over chess games are extremely seldom ;-)
Moreover, since antiquity debates over foreign policy
have not been mere games nor have they been perceived
to be.
The above doesn't appear thoughtful. *Debating* is
occurring over foreign policy! And right here!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:20 MST