----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
>>It seems to > > me that in order to be able to "use massive amounts of anthrax and > > nerve agent" against the US, Hussein would have to be able to fly > > planes over the US or else to target us with ICBMs or maybe warships > > or something else comparable. He can't do that right now. > > How about cargo containers? I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. > > Hmmm, maybe I didn't express myself clearly before. I'm not against > others trying, in general, to limit the power of America in the future > to dictate world events, and I can certainly see how America dictating > world events with no checks and balances would be a bad thing, not the > least of which because Americans would have a vote and be protected > by the Constitution, but foreigners would not. But I fail to see how > opposing America on Iraq is likely to limit America's future world > power, and it is probably more likely to increase American hegemony. > As I said in my previous post, people who are concerned about American > hegemony (and I am, although not to the extremes of the viewpoint > you mention) should work to create balance in a positive manner, for > example, by trying to establish a League of Democratic Nations to > provide a vote and something similar to the protections and freedoms > guaranteed in the US Constitution to all people in the world. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to shut you up! I like to hear what you have > to say, although I would rather you were using your considerable > persuasive writing powers to influence events positively, for example > by discussing how to rebuild Iraq after a war or how to check future > American excessive power expansion while simultaneously increasing > freedom and democracy throughout the world. > > > I think the US has handled this issue about as badly as possible > > on the diplomatic front - by our bluntness placing at needlessly > > increased risk the very leaders, like Tony Blair, by whose support we > > hope to gain international legitimacy. > > I completely agree. Why do you think Bush is so inept at this sort of > thing? He certainly seems to have charmed millions of Americans, why > can't he do the same with Europeans? > > So at this point I'm thinking that if war comes to pass, as it almost > > certainly will, I'm going to bite my tongue and hope and pray, in my > > strange and godless way, that everything works out for the best. > > Any ideas on what we could do, personally, to increase the chances of > success in nation building after the war? (I'm thinking along the lines > of charities, lobbying groups, spending time on the weekends, writing > letters, etc. -- I'm not sure I'm committed enough to quit my job and go > to Iraq to help) I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. It doesn't seem reasonable that a $200/per person (just under 6 billion/year) effort in Afghanistan will involve so much money the system couldn't handle it. My personal belief is that Afghanistan offers a much easier test case for a lot of things we could try in Iraq. I'll grant you that we will take more control initially in Iraq, but having experience working in a Moslem country should prove invaluable. So, that's my suggestion. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
