|
I laugh... I giggle... I snicker... :) But I can't match your comic ability and will have to settle for just ranting away... >> 24601, you are free to use a dying dialect indeed - proud to be a british number! >> mmmmm...
>hmmmm?? no, not hmmmm - it's "mmmm..." >> 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. Indeed, on more than one instance, the US intervention has destroyed democracy. 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 were forced into friendship with it after they decided to abandon their former friend Saddam. 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. >> 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. >> .. 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, just that his neighbours seem keen to trade with Saddam and treat him normally as a friendly nation. >> 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. Personally, I think he should be picked for the windies tour... but that's another story. :) 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. Second, Kuwait was split from Iraq by the British only about 50 years earlier - for no good reason. 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 assumed 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? 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... 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" 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. (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) >> 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. Iraq is the least muslim country in the middle-east... except for Israel of course. >> 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. I don't believe either of those things. >> His actions in Kuwait and Iran would suggest a propensity for this. that's two. The US has invaded or supported terrorist movements in over a dozen countries... including supporting coups against democratic regimes. I'm not saying the US is therefore "evil" and needs to be invaded... but we need some perspective here.
| 
