 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
Pollocks arguments are bollocks, through and through:
Fine, Saddam has miscalculated several times on the actions of others- though i hardly expect the man, or any leader, to be omniscient and always know what the otehr guy will do. The question is, what future miscalculatiuon is Saddam likely to make in the future? One like thinking he would get away or have somehing substantial to gain in giving WMD to terrorist, or using WMD against an enemy?
Lets take his assertion on Kuwait, that he should have waited to have a nuke to invade, which Pollocks includes to make us think that if Saddam got a nuke, then he would invade again: well, first of all, you don't invade with a nuke, you need an army: we have US troops in Kuwait, the Kuwaitis have a better army now,and Saddam a worse and weaker one- so Iraq would be unble to conquer Kuwait in 2 days anymore, i at all. Given this, how would this nuclear blackmail work? Would he threaten to use nukes vs. Israel or Saudi Aarabia unless we left? Well, then don't we and the Israelis simply state openyl, you use them, your dead?
The fact that Hussein has miscalculated when it came to the use of military force doesn't mean that he can't be dettered if the other sides intentions are made obviously clear from the start- something that has never been true, and was not true in any of the example he gave. Add to this the fact that Saddam didn't 'miscalcualte' during the Gulf War on the use of WMD... how come Pollock didn't include that?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|