Text 19399, 102 rader
Skriven 2005-12-20 14:51:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 19308 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Copyright
=================
 MvdV>> While I am not enthousiastic about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,
 MvdV>> I do not consider them a greater threat than any of the other
 MvdV>> countries that have nuclear capability. Nuclear weapons are of
 MvdV>> limited use without the meams to deliver them.

 > Then you should be petrified. The size of nukes today can be
 > put into a suitcase and delivered to your doorstep.

Ah, the suit case bomb scare again. Sorry Roy, that doesn't scare me any more
than Saddam's hypothetical bomb. I do not believe Iran cab do that. If it can
be done at all. I am not falling for the scare scam.

 MvdV>> The greatest number of nuclear bombs is under the control of the US
 MvdV>> and contrary to Iran the US has sofisticated means of delivering
 MvdV>> them. regarding nuclear war, the US is the greatest threat.

 > Fortunately for you and the rest of the world, the US has
 > the restraint to not use them.

They used it twice. That is two times more than anyone else.

 >>> Like Saddam, they'll use them when it suits their agenda.

 MvdV>> Like Saddam? When did he use a nuclear weapon?

 > See WMDs,

We werre talking nukes, not WMD's in general.

 > as in seren (sp) gas, used on his own people, Kurds
 > and Iranians.

It still has to be proven that it was Saadam who gassed the Kurds. It could
have been Iran. Well I guess we will know what Saddam's judges have to say
about it soon enough.

 > No restraint shown in his actions.

And the USA used Agbet Orange and other chemical weapons in
Vietnam. No restraint there either.

 >>> Israel has shown restraint in many different situations where
 >>> the use of 'the bomb' might have been justified.

 MvdV>> Israel show very little restraint when it comes to
 MvdV>> moderating responses.

 > Whoosh! That point went right over your head. Had they no
 > restraint, they could very well have used whatever weapons
 > they had in their arsenal to retaliate for those scuds.

That would have seriously pissed off the USA. It probably would have been the
end of unconditional USAian support. They held back out of fear of losing that.
Not because they are such gentle people.

 MvdV>> For every Israeli killed in an attack, they kill 10
 MvdV>> Palestinians in retaliation. Not what I say "showing restraint"

 > I'd say that they use a lot of restraint. They could just as
 > well bomb the palestinians to oblivion.

Not without seriously endangering themselves.

 > I'll bet the thought of ending the Palestinian plight once
 > and for all has passed through their minds a few times.

And they didn't because they knew even they could not do that withouit signing
their own death warrant as well.

 >>> Like the time that Saddam Husien sent missles into Israel when
 >>> the Israeli were minding their own business during the Gulf war.

 MvdV>> Those scuds were mere pin pricks.

 > Still an attack on the soveriegn state of Israel, who had
 > nothing to do with the Gulf war.

They were an alley of the US. when one of your alleys attack, you can expect to
be firad at as well.

 > But the Saudi' did, why weren't they bombed more than once or twice?

Out of range?


 MvdV>> And so the nuclear powers are giving the wrong signal.

 > Right now, it's the nuclear wannabe powers who are giving off
 > the wrong signals. It'll be they who will start a nuclear war...

 MvdV>> That nuclear weapons are essential for surviving in a hostile
 MvdV>> environment.

 > That may be what they think, but it isn't so.

Then why does the USA not dismantle theirs?


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)