|
PRE>>> nah >> strawman puts up the (let's call it an) argument that "if the the (sic) US just
>> pulled out of the Middle East, Saddam would start harassing his neighbors (sic)
>> again" 24601, you are free to use a dying dialect and have
history relegate you to the same page as any one of the Australian Aboriginal tribes. I don't
wish to. As for "The The", I'm a great fan of Matt Johnson's band. :-) >> mmmmm... hmmmm?? >> of course, this may be true. But it sure makes one wonder why nearly all of his
>> neighbours don't want the US to go to war with Iraq. Because they are concerned that a peaceful and democratic Iraq will prove
that not all Arabs are fundamentalist psychotic nut-cases which need a corrupt dictatorship to contain
them, that democracy can work in the Middle East, and that their
days are numbered .. 24598 .. 24599 .. 24600 .. They don't want to be invaded, but they don't want a peaceful Iraq either.
They want to continue to be protected by the US presence, which 'contains' a
belligerent Iraq. >> Actually, it might make one down right confused when you consider the
>> improvement in relations between Iraq and it's neighbours and all the free
>> trade agreements that Iraq has been entering into lately with their
>> neighbours. .. which Iraq has been forced into because of US sanctions? Just because a
homicidal maniac comes into your shop doesn't make him peaceful. >> Indeed, if one was to consider for too long the incentives of Saddam,
>> recognising that he has always acted quite rationally, then that headache could
>> turn into a migrane - and we all saw what that did to Steve Waugh's second
>> innings. I know not of the 'innings' of which you speak, but I would hesitate to
call starting (and losing) wars with Iran and Kuwait 'rational'. >> Maybe those silly bastards just don't know what's good for them? Anyone who subscribes to a ratbag religion which dictates every aspect of their
lives (including how to wash, and how to defecate) obviously believes
they don't know what's good for them. Is someone who believes they are incapable of making their own
decisions actually incapable of it? I don't know, but they would be pretty good
candidates. >> Maybe Iraq
>> will suddenly, and without precident or explaination, invade countries that it
>> has never held a claim over? Perhaps. Saddam's utility function is how many people he controls (like most of the
politicians in the world), but he places no value on human life. The US place a value on human life - admittedly a much higher value on US lives
than others, but it's still factored in (basically by compassionate US voters). >> History would suggest the U.S. is more likely to do this... but hey - Saddam
>> was backed by the US for a long time and maybe picked up some of their traits?
>> :-/ His actions in Kuwait and Iran would suggest a propensity for this. >> are you convinced yet? I guess the quality of this argument would lead Tim Blair to say "let's roll" .. or in the case of the squishy left "let's roll over"? >> but it's not good enough for this number... Well Saddam's number is nearly up :-)
| 
