Text 19483, 145 rader
Skriven 2005-12-20 13:33:46 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 19399 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Copyright
=================
20 Dec 05 14:51, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:


 MvdV>>> While I am not enthousiastic about Iran acquiring nuclear
 MvdV>>> weapons, I do not consider them a greater threat than any of the
 MvdV>>> other countries that have nuclear capability. Nuclear weapons are
 MvdV>>> of 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.

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

"During beginning of '70s, in USSR have been made some number -- nobody
knows exactly -- some number of small- sized suitcase-size nuclear
munitions. For what? For terroristic [purposes]. Exactly; only for
terroristic [purposes]."

A 2002 testimony before the US Congress by a Russian nuclear scientist.
His fear was that they were not under enough security to ensure that they
wouldn't be stolen, sold, etc., to a terrorist group.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/yablokov.htm
l

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

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

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

And have shown restraint since. There's only one way they'll ever be used
again and that will be in retaliation for a nuclear attack on this
country.

 >>>> Like Saddam, they'll use them when it suits their agenda.
 MvdV>>> Like Saddam? When did he use a nuclear weapon?
 >> See WMDs,
 MvdV> We werre talking nukes, not WMD's in general.

I was talking about WMDs in general. You can talk only about nukes if you
want to.

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

 MvdV> It still has to be proven that it was Saadam who gassed the Kurds.

Eye witnesses have already proved it. Yet you don't have a reply to the
use of gas on the Iranians...sidestepping again.

 MvdV> It could have been Iran. Well I guess we will know what Saddam's
 MvdV> judges have to say about it soon enough.

Yeup. Lot's of Kurds are testifying about it already.

 >> No restraint shown in his actions.

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

Agent Orange is/was a defoliant, not a weapon.

 >>>> 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.

 MvdV> That would have seriously pissed off the USA.

The US was already pissed off, at Iraq.

 MvdV> It probably would have been the end of unconditional USAian
 MvdV> support.

Probably not. The Israeli have pissed the US off before. However, the US
did tell Israel to bite their tongue.

 MvdV> They held back out of fear of losing that. Not because they are
 MvdV> such gentle people.

They held back because we asked them to. If it hadn't been a war to free
Kuwait and instead a war to help Israel, it would have been a different
story.

 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.
 MvdV> Not without seriously endangering themselves.

Never the less, Israel has enough nukes to ensure that any attacker will
be completely destroyed before their enemies 'wipe Israel off the map'!

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

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

Which is a form of restraint.

 >>>> 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.

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

Jordan didn't get any scuds and they're on a friendly basis with the US.

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

 MvdV> Out of range?

LOL! Next door neighbors...

 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.

 MvdV> Then why does the USA not dismantle theirs?

If there weren't any threat to the USA, there wouldn't be a need for them,
right?


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)