|
>> >> Because they are concerned that a peaceful and democratic Iraq will prove
>> >> that not all Arabs are fundamentalist psychotic nut-cases >> possibly... though I doubt Iraq is going to end up democratic. The US has been
>> through this before (country-building) and I'm not sure if any have ended up
>> democratic. Germany and Japan come to mind .. >> Indeed, on more than one instance, the US intervention has
>> destroyed democracy. Doubtless, but you haven't actually argued that US intervention overall has been
bad - you have just not cited some specific examples where it has
been bad. >> However, something similar to what you say is probably true for Saudi Arabia -
>> a country that is able to get away with being the hotbed for Islamic terrorism
>> because the US we re forced into friendship with it after they decided to
>> abandon their former friend Saddam. Think of the House of Saud as the shock absorber on the Axis of Evil. They say
nice things about the US, but their time will come. Bear in mind too they are
less important than they were 30 years ago. The US gets 8% of their oil from them,
down from 30% 30 years ago? [anyone got the actual figures?] >> However, I doubt this would override a concern about being invaded. >> Further, I believe that most middle-east countries have called for the lifting
>> of sanctions against Iraq also (as well as entering free trade agreements) -
>> which goes against your thesis that they want Iraq crippled but alive. I didn't say crippled - I said 'contained'. Healthy, vibrant, productive,
useful, but neatly caged by the 30,000 US troops in the area. >> >> They want to continue to be protected by the US presence, which 'contains' a
>> >> belligerent Iraq. >> I don't believe that the world outside the US, Britain and Australia sees Iraq
>> as overly belligerent. We have been well trained to say that without a second
>> thought... but the rest of the world has suffered the indecency of not having
>> CNN and NBC 'educate' them. As opposed to 8% of the French population being 'educated' by Al-jazeera?
The French (who were thinking of banning the satellite dishes that allow
Al-jazeera reception a few years ago) are now desperate to avoid offending their
Muslim guests. Wouldn't want the situation to get out of control now would we? >> >> .. which Iraq has been forced into because of US sanctions? Just because a
>> homicidal maniac comes into your shop doesn't make him peaceful. >> that's a strawman. >> it matters little why Iraq did it, It is all about why Iraq did it. Their reasons give insight into what
they (ie Saddam) will do in the future. >> just that his neighbours seem keen to trade
>> with Saddam and treat him normally as a friendly nation. His neighbours are keen to trade between the bars of his cage.
Just like your bank manager. >> >> 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'. >> Steve Waugh got out cheaply in his second innings of the fourth test - and
>> blamed it on a headache. He must have got that from the wife. She seems to get headaches .. >> As for the rationality of war with Iran and Kuwait. >> First, the US supported the war against Iran (a rougue country that went off
>> the rails due to US intervention). So if Iraq is irrational, then so is the US. I don't think so. The US didn't lose the war - so why would it be irrational?
I remember egging on that sniveling weasel to take on the classroom bully in
third grade - too bad he got his head pushed through that window. I came
out of it smelling like a rose - he came out of it looking like one. Who was
irrational? >> Second, Kuwait was split from Iraq by the British only about 50 years earlier -
>> for no good reason. A criticism which would have been made of any division at all. Should the
US have just left the Middle East war-lords to fight it out amongst themselves
in the vacuum left by de-colonialization? Sure. Would the Middle East be a more
peaceful place now if they had? No. The region would be controlled by a bunch
of murderous dictators who .. OK, it would have made no difference. >> Iraq had claimed Kuwait for many years, and the world new
>> it. Iraq had the full support of the U.S. and subsequently didn't anticipate
>> the U.S. stopping them at the time... so they claimed what they thought was
>> rightfully their's and reasonably assum ed they would be allowed to keep it. >> While I may not agree with it (in fact, I don't), it's not hard to see that
>> it was rational. >> Then, when the US entered, Iraq _didn't_ use WMD's - though he had them. Why
>> not? It's not clear that he had the delivery technology at that time (or indeed that
he does now). Delivering WMDs via SCUDs is harder than people realize. >> Because he knew that without them he may be able to hold on to
>> power... but if he used them he's be smashed into tiny little pieces. >> So - rational... rational... rational... I think we have different definitions of rational here. Rationality (IMHO) serves a utility function. What do you think Saddam's
utility function is? 'Live and let live'? >> Accusing Saddam of being irrational is a typical rhetorical game used by people
>> who want to create an impression of "evil" that must be defeated by "good" Evil is an entity with
objectives (OK, utility function) totally opposed to your own. Islam, for
example, is completely opposed to what I want - to live free, and make my own
choices. Islam seeks to control my life right down to how I wash and defecate. Hence, yes, there is evil in the world. >> hey - I like 'Lord of the Rings' as much as the next guy, but it's just not
>> true that there is an 'evil force' bent of world domination and the destruction
>> of man. I liked the line:
King: I will not risk bringing war upon my people.
Strider: You have no choice. War is upon you.
>> (though I think the power of the ring is a good proxie for the power of
>> government in that it corrupts people with otherwise good intentions) ... or for the invisible hand :-) >> >> 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. >> I would say that all religion is for people who want other people to make their
>> decisions for them... but then - it should be every persons right to do so. And it is every person's right to criticize them for it. But you digress, my odd little number. You asked
"Maybe those silly bastards just don't know what's good for them?"
anyone who gives up their decision making to someone else doesn't know by
definition. By blindly following anyone else's beliefs, anyone else's religion
without questioning you make yourself a slave to those people. You give up
your freedom of choice, your rationality, your individuality, and everything
that is you. Islam, translated means 'subm
| 
