Well said Mike,

And speaking of propaganda, (not directed at you Ali, i'm sure you just read it as well) "A thousand Iraqi children die every day".

Think about that statement, that's 365,000 children a year, amonst a population of 22 million (giver take a couple) with a birth rate of around 2% per annum, or 440,000 (minus still births) per year. Do you really think they loose over 3/4rds of their births per year to starvation? The population is continuing to grow at a rather large rate, with zero immigration (and *MANY* emmigrating, and dieing), where are they comming from?

Not a thousand child deaths a day...do a thousand *people* a day die or leave? Maybe...but let's be realistic here on who's the king of propaganda...

PLUS, Iraq has long been able (8 years now?) to import food and medicine in exchange for oil, so do they? Absolutly, is it enough? I have no idea, but it's a *lot*. Where does it go? For *SALE* on the open market, which the procceeds go back into the millitary machine. IF there were 1,000 children a day dieing, it's *STRAIGHT* on Saddam's head IMHO.

This guy is buying rocket engines, and running full scale war-games, and living in a massive palace while his subjects starve to death. He sends his relatives to live in other countries in the lap of luxury to avoid the realities of home. Throws himself a multi-million dollar birthday celebration, and runs those farce elections, and people still starve. He sends 25k to each suicide bombers family.

I hope he gets what's comming to him.

I don't belive the US is going in for "all" the right reasons, but there are a LOT of good reasons, and quite simply put, do we ignore him like we did Germany in years gone by? Who else is going to try and stop him? UN stepped up in Hitlers area and urged caution, that we let him continue to arm up, lets try and let this one play out, let's move that line in the sand again, and again, and again. That got us a world war. Would we like to avoid that, or play it through again?

Let's not move this line this time. He's stepped over it this time as he has 15 other times, this time with the mustard gas they've just found, with those rocket engines, with the missles outside of their 92km range limit, and with the "oops, sorry we missed those weapons" on the lists provided.

I don't care if the UN gets up a back-bone and sends in Canadian troops, it's a just cause, and it should be delt with. The US is the best tool in the box to do it, if we as a civilization choose not to use them because of past problems (which is fine by me) then send in *SOMEONE* to fix this.

BTW wonder why the US isn't worried about Korea? They're so short of fuel they can't HOPE to run enough millitary equipment for an extended campain, and they import (can't remeber the figure) something like 50% of their food every year, and people are still starving to death....hardly a world threat. If we wait them out, they'll most probably burn out on their intentions and ask for their shipments of fuel oil again. Iraq, we've been waiting for nearly 20 years...North Korea? 40 days?

Paul

Jolly good fun. I refuse to join the "Dominant Paradigm".

Analogies to WWII don't work. Why?

1. We aren't trying to appease Saddam the way they tried to appease Hitler.

2. Hitler took the Sudatenland, and invaded Czechoslovakia, and it took the invasion of Poland before the Allies got off their hands. Obviously we won't let Saddam take anything, anymore.

3. If there were weapons inspectors in Germany in the late 1930s, the Allies would have realized that Germany was gearing up for a big, big war.

I'm not sure if it is wise to pre-emptively strike any country for what we think they might do. If USA goes it alone, then this sets a precedent that ANY country can pre-emptively strike anybody else for what they think they might do. Do you want to live in that kind of world?

I say let Saddam "try" something first (ie. "I want Kuwait, or I will use my weapons of mass destruction"), then flatten his ass.

All the USA really wants is Saddam no-longer in charge of Iraq because USA has been pushing "Exile" as a solution to war. I'm not sure if it is necessary to flatten Iraq again, just for a change of leadership.

Perhaps if the Government of Canada doesn't give USA the water it may one day need, the USA may feel "justified" to apply pressure to change our government.

And now, over to you.....

Chris Glad to see it's being taken as it's intended (good friendly debate, and nothing else).

Regarding

>I'm not sure if it is wise to pre-emptively >strike any country for what we think they might >do. If USA goes it alone, then this sets a >precedent that ANY country can pre-emptively >strike anybody else for what they think they >might do. Do you want to live in that kind of >world?

Countries pre-emtively strike each other all the time, for various good, and bad reasoning, in the grand old tradition of our world as it has been for the past several thousand years. It's unlikely to change today.

The UN is supposed to stop this, but it has been continually ignoring and "resetting" it's rules and agreements when they're broken. Ask 10 odd countries in Africa what the UN has done for them, or the Congo, or the Chechen Rebels, ect...

To me, it's a useless entity entirely. It wasn't just the allies sitting on their hands when Hitler attacked, the UN was the most guilty party of all. While I love the idea of a global police force, they've been entirely in-effective at protecting the world from the Sadam's, or the US's, or China's that are out there.

And Regarding

>1. We aren't trying to appease Saddam the way >they tried to appease Hitler.
>
>2. Hitler took the Sudatenland, and invaded >Czechoslovakia, and it took the invasion of >Poland before the Allies got off their hands. >Obviously we won't let Saddam take anything, >anymore.

Granted, and correct.

However Sadam has demonstrated what he will do with weapons that he has, several times over. A declaration by the UN (I know, one of 20...which weren't followed) has been issued in an attempt to disarm a very greedy and aggressive regime, and it's been broken (many times over). We either agree the UN stands for basically nothing but paper tigers, or act on it. I don't care if the US does it, or the UN mandates it, and acts on it, but someone needs to.

To me, it's rather embarrassing that the US has to enforce UN treaties that the UN just backs away from on a regular basis...what did the UN do when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Why write treaties with clear outlines, then not act on them? Why should anyone follow a UN treaty when the UN won't even follow them, just amend them to allow more time or generally back down.

They needed to write a treaty in the early 90's, not back off once and follow through, and no one would have even been talking about this today.

Paul

Never assume the Dominant Paradigm is false because it is dominant .

I don't jump on bandwagons... I look at the facts I can see and make up my own mind.

"I say let Saddam "try" something first (ie. "I want Kuwait, or I will use my weapons of mass destruction"), then flatten his ass. "

That's a big gamble once he has nukes that can hit your town. Even if the world went in at that point to stop him he would lay waste to all he could before he fell (just like he lit the oil wells on fire and dumped tonnes into the Gulf).

This logic only works if the intentions of all those involved are true. Saddam has already shown his hand through past actions. His intentions are clear.

Waiting, no let me refraise that... hoping will not help the world in this particular case. Reason above emotion.

Opinions vary in this thread but the one common factor should be that we need to question everything. Taking for granted that politician will make the right decisions for the right reasons is simply asking for trouble. When I talk about U.S and Iraq going to war and the reason is oil I dont mean it is the only reason. Oil is the underlying thread that motivates the U.S. in all there middle east politics but there are other short term goals as well. A short term goal is removing Saddam as a destabilizing threat in that region. Saddam doesnt have weapons of mass destruction it has weapons like many other countries. Iraq has the potential to create a "mass destruction" weapon which is a nuclear weapon..dirty bombs or chemical missles arent even close. If the U.S's stance was honest about protecting against weapons of mass destruction it would be all over North Korea who actually has them. Iraq has been non-compliant for years why the big push now? If the U.S was content to sit back for 10 years with trade sanctions, satelite surveilance and no fly zones etc then why the sudden global importance? If the U.S really gave a crap about human injustice and torture etc why isnt it mobilized in Ethiopa, or Africa or why didnt it break from the U.N. and take over in Yugoslavia . What about the injustices in Saudia Arabia where Saudi men abduct their kids from the U.S and their American wives...the U.S gov sits inactive saying "its a cultural difference that we have to respect" Bullsh*t. The U.S doesnt want to piss the Saudis off. There were strong Saudi links to the 911 attack but where is the response. So dont get me wrong kick Saddams ass, pull the plug on North Korea. I like cheap gas because I drive a car with an internal combustion engine so the quicker we get back to $.60/L the happier i will be. But we have to take off the blinders and rose coloured glasses and see the global situation for what it is, a struggle over power,control,wealth, influence, a massive chess game that most of us cant and dont want to understand and if you can come across looking like a hero while doing this thats simply a bonus. It like Jack Nicholson in the war flick "You cant handle the truth..." and most of us really dont want to. It not black and white it shades of grey and the U.S. is potential the lesser of the evils and I am on their side I just dont kid myself and say that they are wrong/evil and we are right/just.

just so you know the UN didn't exist until after WWII before WWII there was the League of Nations and the only "super powers" in it were Britain and France, they didn't have the power to fight Hitler the UN was created after WWII to prevent another world war from happenin

Christopher, AFAIK it was formed after WWI, not II. But I can't seem to find any information on that from where i'm sitting, but it'd be good to know.

It's always been (in political discussions i've been in) discussed as fact that it had been around after WWI.

Anything you can point out on it's creation date?

Paul

the facts

this should settle that debate. I thought it was created after WWII myself and heres the proof now.

When your stuck at home with the flu, you have some time on your hands.

Thanks Andrew, very good info to know.

While opinions might always differ, having correct facts to base your opinons on are crucial.

Too bad about the flu, it's been going around lately...

Paul

thats what I said
the UN wasn't made until after WWII

Sorry Paul, I meant to say 1000 children deaths per week which as a matter of fact is the going rate. Actualy, Unicef numbers are approx. 4000/month. So approximately half a million since the beginning of the sanctions.

Hey what happened to these friendly debates. For the ones with time on their hands read this thread again and see how we did with our predictions

Quote by me - damn I'm good