Re: state of memes

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Oct 05 2001 - 01:47:17 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: state of memes"

    Received: by id BAA01151 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:52:47 +0100
    Message-ID: <008101c14d37$7a20e240$b486b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: state of memes
    Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:47:17 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk


    > >I can't say much in favor of your analysis of American policy in the
    > >East. It's silly to think that Iraq, had it possessed the requisite
    > >technology, would have considered launching a nuclear attack against the
    > >United States. Armed with 24 missiles, each containing up to 17
    > >independently maneuverable warheads, a single Trident submarine (of which
    > >we
    > >have 22) could have obliterated the country in minutes. Saddam wanted
    > >nukes
    > >because boys like toys. At no point would such weapons have offered him
    > >any
    > >leverage against the US.
    > >
    > >
    > Probably not the U.S., since Israel is much closer.

    Hussein must have resented the fact that Israel's toys were bigger than his.
    He was looking for some kind of parity in the Middle East. No need to feel
    intimidated if he's got his own nukes. He was just imitating his other
    patron, the Soviet Union, which built up a nuclear arsenal to counter ours.

    > >And then the US withdraws gracefully from the Middle East, right? I'm
    > >afraid not. Hussein was demanding Arab self-determination. That means
    > >US stops pouring money into Israel and propping it up as a regional
    > >superpower. It means we don't buy off Egypt as a potential
    > >It means we're not supporting fanatical theocracies that happen to
    > >us with plenty of oil, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It means backing
    > >and allowing the Arab world to constitute itself and sell its goods as it
    > >sees fit. Of course, Hussein hoped to dominate this process himself.
    > >even if he'd succeeded it would have been an improvement.
    > >
    > Somebody who gassed Kurds and Iranians would be an improvement?

    The US gave him the gas for the express purpose of using it against Iran.
    The Kurd thing was his own idea. Naturally, the US had no objection to

    > What was bin Laden's opinion about Hussein's sacking of Kuwait? Would he
    > have committed mujahideen fighters fresh from victory over Soviets in
    > Afghanistan in a jihad against the butcher of Baghdad to protect King Fahd
    > and Saudi Arabia (see Yossef Bodansky's _Bin Laden_, 1999, Forum,Rocklin,
    > California, p. 29) and if so would he and his forces have suffered the
    > fate as Iranians and Kurds did before?

    Your point is opaque.

    > >And there's no obligation for the Palestinians to negotiate with the
    > >Israelis. But then the Palestinians don't have cluster bombs and laser
    > >guided missiles, do they?
    > C-4 and SEMTEX would work just fine. In the hands of brainwashed
    > these are very dangerous.

    Israel has helicopter gunships. Palestine has rocks. Both sides are
    well-represented with brainwashed extremists. The difference is that the
    Palestinian cause is liberation, while the Israeli cause is subjugation.

    > Care to explain who HAMAS and HizbAllah are? Nice people one would invite
    > over for tea?

    No worse than Israeli settlers.


    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 05 2001 - 01:58:03 BST