David Miller wrote: >> Saddam Hussein is working toward obtaining >> nuclear weapons in a secretive manner. (?)
Gary wrote: > the premise above (underlined) is a strange one, > DavidM--the issue is that SH has nuc weapons > on hand, is hiding them Who says that? I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this subject, because I don't know one person who believes that Saddam has nukes right now and is hiding them. If that were true, to attack him would be to invite nuclear war immediately. The point is that he has denied having any program to procure any weapons of mass destruction, yet the evidence shows the opposite is true. In other words, his nuclear weapons program, and biological weapons program, are secretive. Why? Most nations, such as North Korea, advertise their nuclear ability. They want to scare adversaries off from attacking. But when a major military power like Iraq hides efforts to procure nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction, there is one very likely reason. They plan to use them, not scare people away from attacking them. Gary wrote: > regardless, here's an interesting perspective on the issue > by Norman Mailer (someone who has thought this > through? imo, probably more than the average person); > with the media source/article, ff. > > <<"It doesn't matter what they're up to in Iraq..It doesn't matter > if they have nuclear bombs or not or whether they're ready > to do chemical warfare. They're not a danger, but they are > absolutely a position in the world we need militarily. > Dominate Iraq, dominate the Near East, and then get China > in a position to make China the Greece to our Rome.">> Iraq is not a danger? Now I know why he professes to being a wicked man in the rest of the article. :-) If we want to dominate the Middle East, why haven't we done that with Afghanistan first? All these same arguments were made when we went into Afghanistan, but they were all wrong. Tell me, Gary. Do you really believe that if Saddam were to go into exile, that we would attack Iraq anyway and take control of it to dominate the Near East? If not, then this rhetoric is foolish. Our reasons are either to stop Iraq from hurting us (to prevent 9/11 incidents), or they are aggressive, imperialistic efforts to dominate the world. Which do you believe it really is, Gary? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
