22-06-2004 02:57									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Well, I've heard talks of sending troops to Iraq. Still something very diffuse, and maybe just my imagination, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the diplomats' minds. Also, France could have strengthened its position as an anti-US flagwearer, as the occupation became hell. At the contrary, France kept quiet, no "I told you so", no accusations wrt the lack of substance of Bush's trashed excuses for war, etc. That's nothing as clear-cut as Putin's decision, of course, but France could have made things look worse, from a diplomatic point of view, had we continued to play hardcore.

French troops??? with France still blocking Nato from taking over command of the Polish division, despite the majority of NATO states participating in the Coalition? Ill beleive it when I see it.

And no, I dont see how they could play hard ball now. For months theyve been pushing the US to end the occupation, and thats happening. Their principle argument against the invasion was that it would destabilized the region - well now the new Iraqi PM and Pres are asking for help to stabilize the country - theyre going to oppose even a UNSC res?? I suppose they could oppose the provisions for democratization, but that would look pretty bad, wouldnt it? Nah, France was boxed in by Allawi and Yawer. They get no credit on this.


But hats off to them for letting the EU move to a more reasonable view of Arafat and future Pal leadership. But i dont think had anything to do with helping Bush. Just keeping up with the rest of the EU.

	23-06-2004 05:40									#122
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Terrorist organizations, whether Sunni or not, are almost always religious fanatics who believe that America is fighting a war on Islam. Saddam doesn't fit this profile. If he did, he'd run a theocracy, not a secular government.

*sigh* Like I already said, terrorism is merely a tool. Non-state organizations, theocracies, secular dictatorships, democracies, and even clown colleges can use it. The fact that this tool is primarily used by religious extremists is incidental, and does not preclude others from using it.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Saddam misinterpreted American orders.

I hope you don't think April Glaspie saying we didn't care about him settling a minor border dispute constituted an order to attack Kuwait...

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod If Saddam attacked the US, it would be declaring suicide. He knows this. He isn't crazy. If he was crazy enough to attack the US unprovoked he wouldn't have been able to lead a country for almost two decades. There is quite a difference between attacking a small country in the Middle East and attacking the most powerful nation in the world.

Feel free to reread my post; I said it was his refusal to withdraw from Kuwait in the face of American threats which makes me doubt his sanity, NOT the invasion of Kuwait in and of itself. The latter was a very rational decision IMO.

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 If he was so rational and bent on mere survival, why didn't he withdraw from Kuwait then in the first Gulf War? He had to think either A) we wouldn't be willing to fight despite going through all the expense of mobilizing half a million men or B) Iraq would win if we did attack. Neither of these are rational conclusions.

	23-06-2004 06:44									#123
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia why is it different? do terrorist attacks invovle taking the life of people? yes. do military attacks invovle the taking of life of people? yes. so its the same thing.

You forgot euthenasia, suicide, drunk driving resulting in death, and accidental death. They all involve taking the life of a person, so by your own reckoning, they should be included too

I consider there to be quite a difference between deliberately killing innocent women and children, and killing armed enemy soldiers. Doing so because they are of a different religion or because you decide that they are traitorous to your religion because they don't want to be a murderer like yourself makes you even worse

If you can't see a difference then you must be a moron

	23-06-2004 06:57									#124
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat Well, I actually don't believe that France backstabbed us. They had their own reasons for not wanting to participate in a war against Iraq. I respect that.

So you respect the fact that they had their fingers firmly entrenched in the Iraqi pie before the Iraq war, even though it smacks of a major motivation for opposing the war? French companies having lots of defence contracts in Iraq and opposing a war that would have an adverse effect on their income is cause for your respect?

If you want to respect an opinion, you should make sure that the opinion is based purely on moral grounds, not a blatant conflict of interest.

Just about everyone has an interest in Iraq, so be careful who you support

	23-06-2004 07:15									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: *sigh* Like I already said, terrorism is merely a tool. Non-state organizations, theocracies, secular dictatorships, democracies, and even clown colleges can use it. The fact that this tool is primarily used by religious extremists is incidental, and does not preclude others from using it.

So what will Saddam use this tool for? To kill himself?

quote: I hope you don't think April Glaspie saying we didn't care about him settling a minor border dispute constituted an order to attack Kuwait...

Saddam has been supported by the US since he first came in power, he was supported when he went to war with Iran. The more powerful he became, the better for us. He probably figured he'd be supported by us. Then with things not going so well on the homefront for Bush I, he used this as an opportunity to gain some public support. Bush then got the image of a good, strong leader who was fighting evil dictators. It helped him gain support, but in the end it wasn't enough and he didn't get re-elected.

As for why Saddam didn't pull out in the first place?
I don't know. It seemed like a very stupid decision. However, I don't think he was crazy. There was probably some reason for it. I believe this because there doesn't seem to be much evidence of his insanity. There is one decision that he made that I don't know why he did it. Maybe someone else can give that answer. If he was truly insane, insane enough to commit suicide, then he would not have been able to operate a country for two decades.

quote: This seems to completely ignore 1991. I think our utter decimation of his military plus 12 years of crippling sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombings gave him plenty of reason to hate us.

In 12 years he never made any terrorist attacks on us. Why is he all of the sudden a threat to American security that must be taken out? Hmm, maybe it is because Bush needs some support or because some of that oil would be nice.

	23-06-2004 07:20									#126
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: So you respect the fact that they had their fingers firmly entrenched in the Iraqi pie before the Iraq war, even though it smacks of a major motivation for opposing the war? French companies having lots of defence contracts in Iraq and opposing a war that would have an adverse effect on their income is cause for your respect?

France also had other reasons, such as listening to over 80% of the population. I agree with you, some of their reasons for their decision may not be altruistic, mostly because of self-interests in Iraq. But of course, they are French. America would NEVER do anything like that.

	23-06-2004 07:21									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Or, if you like, you could substitute 'killing' for 'terror'. Of course, I hope you can reconize the scale of difference between a mugging and the other two.

Mugging isn't the issue here. Me, like most people, see a distinct difference between killing armed enemy soldiers and defenceless innocent civilians (including women and children). Without that difference, i could let off a bomb in a supermarket and use any political gripe as an excuse to try and justify it.

Terrorism is unacceptable. It is an excuse for murder, and easily differentiated from normal warfare.

	23-06-2004 08:53									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Lung Terrorism is unacceptable. It is an excuse for murder, and easily differentiated from normal warfare.

It is also against the Geneva Convention. Terrorists have no rights.

	23-06-2004 11:45									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod So what will Saddam use this tool for? To kill himself?

So I should consider this a retraction of your argument that one must be a religious zealot to use terrorism? You can't have it both ways.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Saddam has been supported by the US since he first came in power, he was supported when he went to war with Iran. The more powerful he became, the better for us. He probably figured he'd be supported by us.

Sure. However, you said that he 'misinterpreted American orders', and now you're saying that he merely assumed we would support him. You're going in circles.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Then with things not going so well on the homefront for Bush I, he used this as an opportunity to gain some public support. Bush then got the image of a good, strong leader who was fighting evil dictators. It helped him gain support, but in the end it wasn't enough and he didn't get re-elected.

Sure, but this is going off on a tangent. I was using the Gulf War as an example of Saddam's irrational nature, not defending the war's legitimacy itself. That's a totally different debate.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod As for why Saddam didn't pull out in the first place? I don't know. It seemed like a very stupid decision. However, I don't think he was crazy. There was probably some reason for it. I believe this because there doesn't seem to be much evidence of his insanity. There is one decision that he made that I don't know why he did it. Maybe someone else can give that answer. If he was truly insane, insane enough to commit suicide, then he would not have been able to operate a country for two decades.

Ok... so standing his ground before American and allied military might wasn't crazy and suicidal, just 'stupid' (huge difference). However, having Mukhaberat operatives carry out a terrorist attack inside the United States (whilst taking extreme measures to cover up any ties to Iraq) - and then denying any involvement - would be crazy?

Maybe Saddam just rationally assumed that if the U.S. accused Iraq of perpetrating said attack, the American left and most of the world would say it was all a lie to steal Iraq's oil. Sound familiar?

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod In 12 years he never made any terrorist attacks on us. Why is he all of the sudden a threat to American security that must be taken out? Hmm, maybe it is because Bush needs some support or because some of that oil would be nice.

Again you go off on a tangent against arguments that are not my own. Let's step back a sec:

1) You said that "the U.S." denied Putin's claims, and I pointed out that in fact the State Department only said it had no knowledge of such intel. It could have been passed through other channels.
2) You said Saddam had no reason to hate us, and I pointed out several obvious reasons why he should.
3) You said OBL's ilk are radical Shiites, and I pointed out that in fact they are nearly all Wahabbist Sunnis.
4) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's a secular dictator, and I pointed out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion, but rather is a tool sometimes used for religious purposes.
5) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's not suicidal/crazy enough, and I pointed out that his actions in 1991 were completely irrational.

I never said here that that I think Saddam was an unacceptable threat (I don't), and I'm not going to play devil's advocate for the hawk side. I was simply pointing out huge flaws in your post, which you brazenly declared conservatives would be afraid to respond to. I suspect they just chose not to dignify it.

	23-06-2004 15:36									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Odin The CIA are the good guys, Bush is scapegoating them so poeple don't figure out a lot of this stuff was made up by the NSA and Chalabi to legitamate the war. But now the CIA is leaking info to the media, so the truth shall be heard, and Chimpy will be history.

Dumb and Dumberest.

	23-06-2004 15:39									#131
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boshko My isn't this article interesting reading: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2EPOOJVBVEZ3MCRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5460311 And another one bites the dust... The justifications for the war are dying as fast as poor little puppies getting thrown in a river Basically, as many of us suspected, Putin is full of BS as usual.

Note how he says that the information was passed to "our colleagues". Putin's colleagues in the U.S. are the administration itself, while his intelligence agencies colleagues would be U.S. intelligence agencies. These channels have been open for decades. Nixon ran his foreign policy almost entirely from outside the State Department, including the the beginning of the detente.

Putin may be full of BS, or not. But you really have no point worthy of the name.

	23-06-2004 22:31									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 1) You said that "the U.S." denied Putin's claims, and I pointed out that in fact the State Department only said it had no knowledge of such intel. It could have been passed through other channels.

Yeah, I was wrong about that. It is a result of skim-reading.

quote: 4) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's a secular dictator, and I pointed out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion, but rather is a tool sometimes used for religious purposes.

Yes, but mostly used for religious purposes. That is why one would suspect Saddam less.

quote: 5) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's not suicidal/crazy enough, and I pointed out that his actions in 1991 were completely irrational.

Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy? No. He operated a country for 2 decades, and had one of the most efficient food distribution systems in the world. He made one stupid big mistake. That doesn't make him loony enough to be suicidal.

quote: quote: In 12 years he never made any terrorist attacks on us. Why is he all of the sudden a threat to American security that must be taken out? Hmm, maybe it is because Bush needs some support or because some of that oil would be nice. Again you go off on a tangent against arguments that are not my own. Let's step back a sec:

My statement doesn't apply to one of your arguments in particular, it applies to the whole thing. I stated that Saddam was not a threat to America at all, you argued with me. So I am saying that a reason he isn't a threat is that he has done nothing to us for the past 12 years.

quote: Ok... so standing his ground before American and allied military might wasn't crazy and suicidal, just 'stupid' (huge difference). However, having Mukhaberat operatives carry out a terrorist attack inside the United States (whilst taking extreme measures to cover up any ties to Iraq) - and then denying any involvement - would be crazy?

Again, you have been able to point out one stupid decision of Saddam Hussein in 20 years of running a country. Maybe he had reasons. But I guarantee you that if anyone ran a country for 20 years, they'd make at least one big mistake.

Our intelligence is the best in the world. The operation would be too risky. If any of them got caught, if any of them got killed, they'd find out that Iraqis were carrying out the attack. Now Saddam got connected to 911, and the Bush administration is still desperate for any info on him that might link him to terrorist attacks. He still gets linked with AQ, however, Saddam is ObL's enemy, he is secular. If such a terrorist attack occurred and it was discovered that Iraqi secret police carried out the attack, it wouldn't be so hard to link Saddam to it and give the US the perfect reason to invade him. Saddam knows this, and that is why he has done nothing for 12 years.

quote: I never said here that that I think Saddam was an unacceptable threat (I don't), and I'm not going to play devil's advocate for the hawk side. I was simply pointing out huge flaws in your post, which you brazenly declared conservatives would be afraid to respond to. I suspect they just chose not to dignify it.

Well first off, I had a reason to 'brazenly' declare conservatives wouldn't respond. Everytime I have brought up these arguments, no one argues back. In fact this is the first time I have ever had an argument on the topic (on the anti-war side, that is). Second, the reason I said that was so I could actually have an argument about it for once. I like political discussion, and I've never had the argument before so I wanted to see what they had to say.

The fact that someone who doesn't even agree with the conservative position was the one that came and argued is pretty sad.

And I don't think it was because they didn't want to 'dignify' it. No one dignifies anything by arguing it. If my post was so stupid they would've argued with me to make me look bad by losing poorly.

	24-06-2004 00:37									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy? No. He operated a country for 2 decades, and had one of the most efficient food distribution systems in the world. He made one stupid big mistake. That doesn't make him loony enough to be suicidal.

Saddam has killed his own relatives when he suspected they betrayed him.

Crazy enough?

Saddam waged a war on Iran - while his motiefs to do so were good (oil route + land + fear of shiite revolution) , his logic system compltely ignored the huge risks and the sheer impossibility of the task (over estimated his ability).

Crazy enough?

I'm not claiming he's compltely crazy. But he isn't very sane and is indeed a risk taker.

quote: Since Saddam could not threaten the US in any conventional way, it is very possible than its pre-emprive plans against the US (just like any country has plans against others) probably involved terrorism. It doesn't mean Saddam intended to perpetrate the terror attacks until war began.

And it is exactly the goal of the new US "war on terrorism" to signal to everyone that terrorism is not a legitimate way. If you can't win by legitimate means - it doesn't that your goal justifies illegitimate means (terrorism).

	24-06-2004 01:05									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy?

Given how stupid it was, yes. It's not the same as occasionally adding 2+2 and answering five.

	24-06-2004 01:16									#135
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich [q] [SIZE=1] Given how stupid it was, yes. It's not the same as occasionally adding 2+2 and answering five.

How stupid? It isn't his fault the US decided to make him into a cause celebre of evil-his was a problem of timing-firt big war after the Cold War.

As for his actions prior to 1990- he crushed the Kurds, and his war vs. Iran tuned into a nasty stalemate, but he did not lose the war-in 1988 the iraqis scored some major victories meaning the Iranians had to come to terms.

	24-06-2004 08:12									#136
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Saddam has killed his own relatives when he suspected they betrayed him.

Saddam had lots of political enemies that wanted to assasinate him, so he was extremely cautious, rarely making public appearances and making sure that anyone that was suspected of betraying him would be killed. This was a brutal strategy but a successful one, he never was assasinated. Again, this is an example of his sheer brutality, but it doesn't show his craziness.

Saddam would never attack the US. First off, he has done nothing for 12 years. There is no reason to all of the sudden believe he is a threat or would want to attack us. Sure, he may be made at the US government for what they did, but he wouldn't commit suicide just for killing a couple of innocent Americans. He doesn't care about Americans. If he killed a couple of them, it wouldn't do him any good. Now maybe if he was extremely insane, he might commit an attack of terror against the US, but judging by how he looked when he made public appearances and the fact that he ran a country for two decades.

I will say it once more for the last time.

Insane people can't run a country efficiently for long periods of time.

	24-06-2004 09:31									#137
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Insane people can't run a country efficiently for long periods of time.

Anyone running a country efficiently for a long period of time will go insane.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

	26-06-2004 09:29									#138
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh come on, Darius, if you are going to call my posts stupid, I don't care, but at least back it up and prove me wrong.

	26-06-2004 11:06									#139
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sorry, I don't dash to Apolyton every time I get home to see if you've posted.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy? No.

You said he wasn't suicidal enough to launch a terrorist attack on the U.S., and I mentioned one time where he quite literally threw his country into a meat grinder. How many times must he do so before you doubt his judgement? 3? 5? 10? n? What's the arbitrary number these days? As Skywalker/Kucinich said, what matters is the level of insanity/stupidity/miscalculation/bad luck/(whatever the hell you want to call it) that he displayed in that 1 decision, not the number of bad decisions. As Sirotnikov said, it was just the most obvious insane/stupid/(whatever the hell you want to call it) decision, and there are several others.

Still, this goes without mentioning that his connection to such a terrorist attack could be easily concealed, so it isn't even "suicidal" to begin with.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod My statement doesn't apply to one of your arguments in particular, it applies to the whole thing. I stated that Saddam was not a threat to America at all, you argued with me. So I am saying that a reason he isn't a threat is that he has done nothing to us for the past 12 years.

I responded to specific points in your post, and never argued that Saddam was a major threat to America. I'm not going to get dragged into that discussion.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Our intelligence is the best in the world.

Eh? The intelligence community that didn't foresee fall of the Berlin Wall, didn't prevent 9/11, was convinced Iraq and al-Qaeda had a collaborative relationship, and was convinced Iraq had WMD? That one?

We might be the best at cryptology, intercepting communications, and satellite recon, but our human intelligence is far from the best. The Mossad and SVR probably take the cake there, but I digress.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod If any of them got caught, if any of them got killed, they'd find out that Iraqis were carrying out the attack.

The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Did we invade Saudi Arabia in response? Saddam could have simply denied involvement, and the fact that the men who did it were Iraqi would have proven nothing. Even if it were proven that they had once been in the Mukhaberat, he could have said they had left Iraq years before and acted on their own.

He could have said whatever he wanted to look innocent, and it's not hard to imagine much of the world having believed him over Bush. Look at the political culture in the last year and tell me that's not conceivable.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod The operation would be too risky.

Going to war with Iran was risky. Invading Kuwait was risky. Refusing to withdraw from Kuwait on threat of war with the most fearsome military machine in the history of man was risky. Attempting to assassinate an American ex-president was risky. Kicking inspectors out of the country in 1998 was risky. Hindering inspections in 2002-2003 and doing a piss-poor job of accounting for missing weapons was risky. Having Mukhaberat operatives carry out a terrorist attack inside the United States with specific orders to cover up all evidence of Iraq's involvement would have been risky. So what?

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Insane people can't run a country efficiently for long periods of time.

The fact that he brutalized his people enough to stay in power for over 2 decades does NOT mean he was incapable of taking huge risks. If anything, it was his gambling nature that kept him in power.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Well first off, I had a reason to 'brazenly' declare conservatives wouldn't respond. Everytime I have brought up these arguments, no one argues back.

That is because everything you said has been said countless times. Don't think they never responded because they were afraid to.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod The fact that someone who doesn't even agree with the conservative position was the one that came and argued is pretty sad.

Oh I didn't say I wasn't conservative or that I was against the war. I just said I disagree with most conservatives about whether he had stockpiles of WMD or a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda, and supported the war for my own reasons. If it turns out they're right about these two things, well that's just gravy.

	26-06-2004 22:20									#140
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Sorry, I don't dash to Apolyton every time I get home to see if you've posted.

You don't??!!

quote: The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Did we invade Saudi Arabia in response? Saddam could have simply denied involvement, and the fact that the men who did it were Iraqi would have proven nothing. Even if it were proven that they had once been in the Mukhaberat, he could have said they had left Iraq years before and acted on their own.

Saudi Arabia is our ally. They are possibly the most brutal regime in the world, but our government doesn't care. Bush needed to get rid of the 'evildoers' for his War on Terror and gain public support. Saddam was very weak, and brutal, and also had oil. He was the perfect target to invade. Bush looked for excuses to invade him. He still gets connected to AQ and 911 even though he didn't do it. Bush still connects him to it, and I still hear many conservatives talk about how he took part in it. If Saddam did anything that could possibly used against him, Bush would say look, we've got to invade Iraq. And that would be the end of Saddam. An example of this is when throughout the years he many times refused weapons inspectors into Iraq, for he knew that the CIA had infiltrated them, making it very risky for Saddam. He didn't want to get assasinated. So when Bush said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, Saddam even decided to let them in, even though it created a much greater risk. Bush's main argument was now gone, but he created more and still invaded. But I digress.

quote: He could have said whatever he wanted to look innocent, and it's not hard to imagine much of the world having believed him over Bush. Look at the political culture in the last year and tell me that's not conceivable.

Yeah but it would be much harder to look innocent after conducting a terrorist attack. Saddam needed everything he could to look innocent and possibly avoid getting invaded. If he committed a blatant terrorist attack, that would be the last straw and the world would be more acceptable of an American invasion and he'd surely get knocked out of power. Remember the sympathy America got from 9/11? If a terrorist attack against America was made by a brutal dictator, I think the world would be much more okay with America going to get rid of him.

But tell me why Saddam would commit such an attack. As for people like ObL, they believe that if they kill Americans, they get a higher place in heaven. But Saddam definitely isn't like this. Why would he attack America? Sure, he may not like us. But what good would it do him if he was able to maybe kill a few hundred Americans? That wouldn't do him any good. It wouldn't make him more powerful or help him in any way at all, but what it would do is guarantee him of losing his power.

quote: Going to war with Iran was risky. Invading Kuwait was risky. Refusing to withdraw from Kuwait on threat of war with the most fearsome military machine in the history of man was risky. Attempting to assassinate an American ex-president was risky. Kicking inspectors out of the country in 1998 was risky. Hindering inspections in 2002-2003 and doing a piss-poor job of accounting for missing weapons was risky.

His invasion of Iran paid off in the end, and how risky was it really? He was getting support from the US. He was even getting chemicals for WMD from American corporations. At the time he tried to assasinate Bush I, America wasn't bent on looking for a reason to invade Iraq with. Saddam knew that Clinton wouldn't do anything about it. Hindering inspections? He didn't let the inspectors in because the CIA had infiltrated them. But eventually, he let the inspectos in. He did this because he was interested in staying in power, and didn't want to give the US any reasons to invade him. Does this sound familiar? (Hint: he wouldn't want to attack the US, it would give them big reasons to invade him)

quote: You said he wasn't suicidal enough to launch a terrorist attack on the U.S., and I mentioned one time where he quite literally threw his country into a meat grinder. How many times must he do so before you doubt his judgement? 3? 5? 10? n? What's the arbitrary number these days? As Skywalker/Kucinich said, what matters is the level of insanity/stupidity/miscalculation/bad luck/(whatever the hell you want to call it) that he displayed in that 1 decision, not the number of bad decisions. As Sirotnikov said, it was just the most obvious insane/stupid/(whatever the hell you want to call it) decision, and there are several others.

Look, if someone makes 99.999999999% of their decisions in a sane manner, I don't think they are insane. In twenty years of rule, he made a bad decision. But maybe he had reasons for it. Maybe he believed that if he let America have its way and use the Gulf War as a move to gain voters, they'd support Saddam for helping, and if Saddam withdrew and did what was asked of him, Bush would cut off his support, support Iraqi rebels, and possibly still invade him but take him out of power. After all, Saddam was left in power, and when the Shiite rebellion occurred, the US didn't support it. But he ended up being wrong, Bush didn't get reelected and the US put sanctions on Saddam. But then again, maybe Saddam would have wanted the sanctions. Sure, they really hurt the Iraqi people (it resulted in the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children), but they actually helped out Saddam, the sanctions just made the Iraqi people dependant on him and made it hard for a rebellion to occurr. Even though his army was crushed in the Gulf War I and his people wanted him out of power, he still was able to hold onto power. It shows how much the sanctions helped him. Since he made 99.999999% of his decisions in a rational manner, I might as well deduce that he probably made this one in a sane manner. Even if it was a really dumb decision, have you ever made a terrible decision like that before? I know I've made decisions before and afterwards I don't have any idea what I was thinking or what my rationale was. He efficiently ran a country for two decades and made one bad decision. I don't think he is insane. Even if he was a risk taker, this risk would be too stupid for him. It wouldn't help him at all, and it would directly lead to him getting thrown out of power, unlike some of his other risks.

quote: I responded to specific points in your post, and never argued that Saddam was a major threat to America. I'm not going to get dragged into that discussion.

Well what do you think this discussion is? The whole point of the post was to only list a few arguments, then let the pro-war brigade come in, then I'd argue with them. If I just listed every single argument there was for why Saddam wasn't a threat, 1. it would take a long time, and 2. people would have less incentive to argue with me.

	26-06-2004 22:27									#141
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Iraq is a hopeless case, full stop, thankyou Mr Bush.