| That's always the way of it. Some pointy-headed CIA analyst convinces a mushy liberal columnist that "we gotta go in" and the next thing you know kids are being converted into ground round.
Before I buy it and/or read it:
Will he convince me that Saddam has weapons capable of hitting a US city?
Does he explain why if it's so important for Saddam to be taken out, we have to do it, as opposed to say, Israel?
Apparently his argument is that Saddam is "undeterrable." That's obvious hooey because he's been deterred for the last ten years. "Yeah, but I mean undeterrable any minute now."
the threat isn't weapons hitting a us city, it's hitting the saudi oilfields.
israel couldn't "do it" even if we/they wanted because it takes a lot of heavy armor and troops -- you have to occupy. of course if israel invaded iraq all the other arab countries would jump in, etc etc
Deterrence won't stop a nuclear-armed saddam from retaking kuwait and to stop him from going after saudi too we'd have to nuke bagdhad PLUS risk the destruction of the oilfields (not the underlying oil, of course, but the wells, refineries, etc).
The gist is, deal with saddam now, or deal with him later, armed with nukes, and holding them to the head of the world economy. I think it should probably take a nuke about 2 or 3 minutes to get from southern iraq to northern saudi arabia, right?
|
Before I buy it and/or read it:
Will he convince me that Saddam has weapons capable of hitting a US city?
Does he explain why if it's so important for Saddam to be taken out, we have to do it, as opposed to say, Israel?
Apparently his argument is that Saddam is "undeterrable." That's obvious hooey because he's been deterred for the last ten years. "Yeah, but I mean undeterrable any minute now."
- tom moody 12-17-2002 5:51 pm
the threat isn't weapons hitting a us city, it's hitting the saudi oilfields.
israel couldn't "do it" even if we/they wanted because it takes a lot of heavy armor and troops -- you have to occupy. of course if israel invaded iraq all the other arab countries would jump in, etc etc
Deterrence won't stop a nuclear-armed saddam from retaking kuwait and to stop him from going after saudi too we'd have to nuke bagdhad PLUS risk the destruction of the oilfields (not the underlying oil, of course, but the wells, refineries, etc).
The gist is, deal with saddam now, or deal with him later, armed with nukes, and holding them to the head of the world economy. I think it should probably take a nuke about 2 or 3 minutes to get from southern iraq to northern saudi arabia, right?
- big jimmy 12-19-2002 11:36 am [add a comment]