[geeks] POWER5!!!!

[Eric Dittman]

> >> That guy is so obsessed with the idea of proving himself that he'll 
> >> take the whole fucking country down to do it.
> 
> >Saddam is nuts.  He's proved in the past that he has no qualms
> >about using chemical weapons against his foes.  
> 
> Gosh. He has some of the same weapons the US does and uses them
> in war. That must be a first.  It's not like the US has ever used
> weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have military targets.

> I don't understand the whole "Weapon A killing 1,000 people is BAD.
> Weapon B killing 1,000 people is FINE." attitude.  I'd rather face
> Saddam's chemicals than a bunch of US cruise missiles.
> 
> >He's also tried to get nuclear weapons. 
> 
> So has the US. So has France. Who cares?

I think Saddam is pretty likely to use them.  If he nuked
Israel, Israel would nuke them, and things would start to
escalate pretty quickly.  I think we'd find out then which
countries in the Middle East actually had nukes.

> We didn't invade Pakistan when they tested their first nuke.

No, we didn't, but Pakistan was driven to develop nukes to
counter India.  We did discuss the issue diplomatically.

> >He's financed terrorism. 
> 
> He was incredibly hostile to Islamic militants before we decided
> to occupy his country for a decade. Perhaps we should have just
> left him alone. If someone else managed to enforce an embargo &
> no-fly zone on the US, I'm sure there would be a terrorist
> response. 

The embargo and no-fly zone were responses to Saddam's refusal
to honor terms of surrender that he agreed to after the Gulf
War.

> >He's tried
> >to commit genocide.  He's another Hitler waiting to happen.
> 
> WHILE HE WAS OUR GUY. Why didn't it bother us then? And why is
> the General who was in charge of the gassing of the Kurds being
> pushed by us to replace Saddam!?!?

I think it did bother us then.  The news was reported over
here in the US when it was discovered, and there was a bit
of an outcry.

> >We could do a Chamberlain and ignore him, but look where that
> >got Europe.
> 
> Yeah, we could ignore him. That would be fantastic. Instead
> we occupy his country for ten years. That's sure to make him
> friendly.

Look where that got Europe.

> >One problem we have is that *EVERY* country in the Middle East
> >supports, either officially or unofficially, terrorism against
> >the United States.
> 
> Primarily our "allies" though. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the
> biggest problem.
> 
> Just about everything that is said to justify attacking Iraq applies
> better to Pakistan. But Pakistan doesn't have the huge oil fields
> of Iraq.

But Saudi Arabia does.

Unfortunately, that's why we are so buddy-buddy with Saudi
Arabia even though a lot of the financing and manpower for
the terrorists come from there.  I think it's time to stop
being so diplomatic with Saudi Arabia just for their oil.
-- 
Eric Dittman
dittman at dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/