[Rhodes22-list] WAR

[Steve]

Well said, Roger.

Hey, there is an old saying, "Nuke them all, and let
God sort it out".

Don't know if it applies to Iraq but if they use
chemical on our guys, the nukes might burn up a lot of
the chemicals in the air.  

Anyway, it Monday, super boul was a blow out and I'm
ony on my second cup of coffee.  This early in the
morning, I'm pretty flexible on all issues:-)
Steve


--- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> Iraq has a simple mass balance accounting problem. 
> Apparently, we have
> evidence that in the early 90's, Iraq had something
> like 20,000 - 30,000
> chemical/biological warheads.  Some of these were
> designed to fit on top of
> SKUD missiles, some into artillery shells, & some
> into aircraft-dropped
> gravity bombs.  It turns out that the 11,000 page
> declaration that Iraq
> filed in response to the UN's call for an accounting
> of its weapons of mass
> destruction did not mention any of these warheads. 
> Nor did it give any
> accounting of how, when, or where these weapons were
> destroyed, dismantled,
> etc.  Iraq claims these records were "lost". "I
> destroyed several thousand
> tons of the most toxic stuff on earth without any
> written procedures, or
> written records, & there is no trace of the facility
> that I used."   "The
> dog ate my homework, honest!"  So, the question
> boils down to, Ten years
> ago, Iraq had many thousands of chemical/biological
> warheads.  Now Iraq
> claims to have none.  Show us the records & the
> facilities where they were
> destroyed.  Otherwise, the conclusion must be that
> Iraq still has these
> weapons & is hiding them.  No one disputes that Iraq
> had these weapons ten
> years ago.  In the meantime, Saddam has had ten
> years to hide these weapons
> in an area the size of the State of California. 
> Last week, acting on a US
> intelligence tip, the UN Weapons Inspectors found 11
> empty chemical
> warheads.  At this rate, the disarming process will
> require several hundred
> years!
> 
> Having said that, it's not clear to me that having
> our troops siting on
> Iraq's border, with the Northern & Southern No-Fly
> Zones, huge teams of
> inspectors combing the cities & countryside, & round
> the clock satellite
> surveillence isn't preferable to an invasion.  The
> whole process is a very
> public spectacle in Iraq & it's got to be a huge
> loss of face & pride for
> Sadam.  Perhaps, if the inspection process is
> allowed to continue; then,
> some of his officers will crack under the pressure &
> defect or assasinate
> Sadam.
> 
> If we invade now, we must assume that Sadam has
> these weapons hidden
> somewhere.  With his back up against the wall, Sadam
> will attempt to use
> them.  He will have nothing to lose.  This is not a
> huge problem for our
> troops because they are trained & equipped to handle
> this kind of warfare.
> The nightmare scenario is that Sadam will
> contaminate huge areas of the
> Middle East & East Africa with incredibly toxic &
> long lived biological &
> chemical materials.  How do you protect the
> populations in these areas?  How
> do you prevent the wind & ocean currents from
> spreading these materials all
> over the Indian Ocean & eventually, all over the
> world?
> 
> I am less worried that Iraq currently has nuclear
> weapons because the UN
> Weapons Inspectors did a much better job of finding
> & destroying Iraq's
> Nuclear Program sites back in the early 1990's.  In
> addition, these nuclear
> weapons sites tend to be pretty large & much more
> difficult to hide than
> chemical/biological weapons sites.
> 
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilbrium
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Schultz" <BenS@ApproSystems.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> <rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 7:20 AM
> Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] WAR
> 
> 
> > I think that's the crux of the problem:  why
> exactly are we attacking?  I
> > know that there are suspicions of a nuclear
> program, but if we've got the
> > goods on Saddam, why can't the inspectors find
> anything?
> >
> > I have two close friends overseas in active duty. 
> They both volunteered
> to
> > go, and I would never expect either of them
> complain about being there.
> But
> > the fact is, thatsome of our men and women will
> most likely be coming home
> > in coffins.  It better be worth it.
> >
> > I think that our citizens and other governments
> would be more supportive
> if
> > we would strategically leak at least a little bit
> of the dirt that we have
> > on Iraq.
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Alm [mailto:salm@mn.rr.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:34
> > To: Rhodes
> > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] WAR
> >
> >
> > This looks to me to be a no-win situation.  We're
> damned if we do and
> damned
> > if we don't.  If we go after the oil, it'll look
> like greedy, 19th
> > century-style resource-grabbing.  If we're just
> trying to stabilize the
> > region, i.e., going after the menacing
> anti-American regime, it'll look
> like
> > colonization/culturalization--one of the main
> reasons the Arab world hates
> > us in the first place.  Doing nothing at all
> doesn't really seem very
> > acceptable either.  If our battle cry is going to
> be to avenge 9/11, and
> we
> > go in there without much proof of WMD, it'll just
> look like an old
> fashioned
> > lynching.  We're not really fighting for OUR
> oil--we get most of ours
> > elsewhere.  But we are fighting on behalf of oil
> for our European allies.
> > But they don't seem to support us so I guess
> Bush'll just do whatever he
> > thinks is best for them.
> >
> > America is the big dog on the block and that makes
> us everybody's problem
> > AND solution.  The big dog has the biggest bark
> and bite, but also leaves
> > the biggest, stinky messes to clean up.
> >
> > Like it or not, and I don't, it looks like we're
> going to invade.  I can't
> > think of any circumstances under which Bush would
> say, "Oh, OK.  Never
> > mind."  The Iraqi army will fall like a house of
> cards, but no doubt
> Saddam
> > has some dirty tricks up his sleeve.  There's
> speculation now that he
> might
> > torch his own oil wells.
> >
> > Slim
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > The information transmitted may contain
> confidential material and is
> > intended only for the person or entity to which it
> is addressed.
> > Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
> use of or taking of any
> > action by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is
> > prohibited.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please
> delete the information from
> > your system and contact the sender.
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help?
www.rhodes22.org/list


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com