Hatton Humphrey wrote: > > Not going there today, don't have the energy nor the patience for it.
I wouldn't have gone further than the requests to explain certain financial dealings anyway. I don't even know if he had a proper explanation or not. And frankly, I don't care. >>2. Does not obey international treaties. > > That the US has not agreed to or endorsed. The ABM treaty did not have a clause that allowed a party to withdraw from it. >>3. Did not get into power in a democratic way. > > Was elected using the current method of elections including the > electoral process. Six months after the elections were put to rest a > team of independent media types begrudgingly admitted after recounting > FL's ballots for something like the 7th time that Bush would *still* > have won. You have seen different counts as I have. But given that I don't even know how Saddam got into power not the most interesting argument. Just don't forget that Hitler was elected to (no I am not comparing Hitler to GWB, but it is just a reminder that the story about democratic countries not fighting unjust wars is a fairy tale). >>4. Controls many weapons of mass destruction. > > We are not the only country to have WMD's... however, AFAIK Iraq is the > only country to use them on their own citizens. Perhaps not citizens, but how about the military personel that they were tested upon without their knowledge or consent? >>5. Doesn't allow others to inspect US weapons of mass destruction. > > It's never been asked for or thought of. Here's the two big > differences: Iraq was pummeled after invading a friendly Middle East > nation. Saddam Hussein ordered women and children to act as human > shields against attacks from "the Great Satan" (aka, the West... more > specifically the US). The money that Iraq gets from it's restricted oil > exports has been going towards rebuilding a military arsenal instead of > for food and medicine as was originally agreed upon. The US was the one > that did the pummeling, in conjunction with their allies. So what it comes down to is "because we can". Frankly, I find it scary that people just call to remove somebody in a region that is as unstable as it is right now. Because you can't just remove the leader of a country, you need to replace him. If you don't, I bet the result will be civil war, in a country filled with the most deadly substances known to man. So who are you going to replace him with? Some Kurdian(?) rebel leader? The rest of the country willl fight him as soon as they get the chance. Some Shi'a leader? The Shi'a have been funded and supported from Iran for years. Do you really want Iraq to fall apart and 75% of it (with all the oil and the access to the sea) fall into the hands of Iran? There are serious risks when you try to replace somebody like Saddam. Also during the operation itself, which I expect to be pretty troublesome (does anybody really believe Saddam was not on the target list during the Gulf War?). There is currently very little support for it in the region, and any (perceived) error in the operation wil enflame people there. And I think the support for dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and other countries there really isn't that big. Will Iraq refrain from using weapons of mass destruction against Israel (and possibly other countries) again? Why would it, Saddam knows very sure that if the allied forces come they will be comming not for a piece of land but for his head. If Saddam does go chemical, will Israel have a nuclear response? What will other countries do if Israel goes nuclear? Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
