Re: state of memes

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Oct 05 2001 - 03:03:52 BST

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

    Received: by id DAA01258 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:08:56 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: state of memes
    Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:03:52 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2001 02:03:53.0164 (UTC) FILETIME=[FB8D50C0:01C14D41]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: state of memes
    >Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:47:17 -0700
    > > >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
    > > >United States. Armed with 24 missiles, each containing up to 17
    > > >independently maneuverable warheads, a single Trident submarine (of
    > > >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
    > > >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
    >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
    > > >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
    > > and Saudi Arabia (see Yossef Bodansky's _Bin Laden_, 1999,
    > > 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.
    I figured it would be clear to someone familiar with bin Laden's bio. Check
    out Bodansky's book (where I cited above) and see what you gather. The part
    about the mujahideen getting gassed by Hussein was a possible consequence I
    was pondering. They would not have had the stealth bombers/fighters and the
    smart weapons at their disposal (excepting the Stingers) against Iraq if
    they had fought Hussein instead of the US, UK, et al. Would bin Laden et al
    have been successful against Iraq (san infidel support), preventing a
    possible invasion of Saudi Arabia after Kuwait had been invaded?

    Did the U.S. really give Hussein gas for use on Iranians? Any cites for this
    or can someone corroborate.

    We have a bad track record with supporting bad people. The Northern Alliance
    are portrayed as the noble heroes now. Strategically for the short term they
    could be a plus, but what about any long term blowback potential as we saw
    with support of the mujahideen? Aren't the Northern Alliance (aka Coalition
    of the North?) affiliated as Shiites with Iran? The situation with all its
    subtleties is a little too complex for me to parse, Iran seeming a wild card
    and Pakistan (with its ISI and Taliban connections) likewise.

    Israel and India are a couple wild cards too, if it comes to blows.

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 - 03:14:21 BST