Bush Rating: on a scale from sane to saint

[Pilgrim]

Ok, so the innocent iraqis can die then.

wait, are yu saying that NK is a bigger bully than us? Aren't we the biggest kid on the block?

[GrayPilgrim]

Notice Ryokan said South Korean lives. We are attempting to protect our ally in that region from the onslaught that would follow any build up as the NK have threatened to do.

[Pilgrim]

Oh ok, so then all the Innocent Saudis and Jordanians etc...can die. I understand.

[Ryokan]

Less Iraqi innocents would die, than I think the potential Iraqi, Americans and others would. And to a certain extent, everyone of them supports their government. If you submit to tyranny, you are somewhat culpable for what happens. And sometimes, Pilgrim, there are just no good answer, just sucky, and very very sucky. I like the sucky invasion of Iraq better than the ultra sucky potential Iraqi blackmail followed by Iraqi terrorist attacks or Iraqi invasions. North Korea may yet make a deal. They haven't gone to war in 50 years.

[$cirisme]

Oh ok, so then all the Innocent Saudis and Jordanians etc...can die.

Better than a bunch of Americans, Israelis, and Koreans, don't ya think? :brow:

Sorry, but I am an American first, and you bet I will look after my own interests first. Not to mention the fact that us attacking them will result in far fewer innocent death than them attacking us. If they attack us, their goal will be to maximize innocent deaths, if we attack them, our goal will be to minimize innocent deaths.

[Pilgrim]

Youy're right, there just is no good answer. My hope is that all war would be avoided.

[GrayPilgrim]

As does everyone.

[$cirisme]

My hope is that all war would be avoided.

I hope so too, but unfortuneatly, at this point in time, it looks unrealistic.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 03:05 PM
cirisme:



Better than a bunch of Americans, Israelis, and Koreans, don't ya think? :brow:

Sorry, but I am an American first, and you bet I will look after my own interests first. Not to mention the fact that us attacking them will result in far fewer innocent death than them attacking us. If they attack us, their goal will be to maximize innocent deaths, if we attack them, our goal will be to minimize innocent deaths.

You all are predicating this argument on the idea that if left alone, Iraq would attack. But they have made no threats or moves of aggression against the US, and nothing they have done or said has indicated that they would do so except in response to an invasion of their own soil. Saddam's actions indicate that he is not the sort of madman who is bent on conquest and territorial expansion, but is the sort of mad businessman who is bent on doing whatever will give him a significant position of economic leverage. Attacking and invading a far more powerful country would not serve those interests. Most terrorist attacks against the US and US interests have come from Muslim extremists acting out of some twisted sense of religious duty, but Saddam Hussein is not a Muslim, he runs a secular government. So, he lacks the two most fundamental elements that would give rise to a serious threat of attack from that region: ambition for territorial dominance, and fanatical religious zeal.

Actually, although I agree that Saddam is an evil and a cancer that probably does need to be excised, for the sake of his own people, when we do so, if a Muslim government takes over the current secular government, it would actually be a greater risk factor for attack against the US than what currently stands.

[$cirisme]

Saddam's actions indicate that he is not the sort of madman who is bent on conquest and territorial expansion

Except for Kuwait, right?

[$cirisme]

Oh, and if your agrument were to hold true, why would he even bother with hiding his weapons?

They've already found numerous weapons that he was supposed to declare, but didn't.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 04:39 PM
cirisme:



Except for Kuwait, right?

Kuwait was clearly an economic ploy, not a territorial one. As it stands, Iraq controls the world's largest oil supply. If he had control of Kuwait's oil reserves, it would be a significant step toward overtaking Saudi Arabia as the #1 supplier in the world.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 04:40 PM
cirisme:

Oh, and if your agrument were to hold true, why would he even bother with hiding his weapons?

Well, probably because he feels he is being pressured into disarming to the point of being severely crippled defensively. Lately, since we haven't been able to turn up any wmd's, we've resorted to nitpicking at his conventional arsenal. Heck, if I was a leader concerned that the big bully on the block was trying to take away my defenses, I'd stash some, too. So would you.

They've already found numerous weapons that he was supposed to declare, but didn't.

So far, the only thing they've found that violates UN resolutions is the Sahmoud II missiles, which were found to "slightly" overshoot the 93-mile limit when they aren't carrying a payload or guidance system. As for the two most recent discoveries:

cluster bomb: in and of itself, not illegal. Unless they discover that it has a payload of chemical submunitions (nothing has been declared, to date), then it doesn't amount to anything and would not require declaration by the UN resolution.

drone: not a weapon, but a conveyance. The 93-mile limit applies to weapons that can propel themselves, not to conveyances that can potentially carry weapons.

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 03:06 PM
Eireann:
Kuwait was clearly an economic ploy, not a territorial one. As it stands, Iraq controls the world's largest oil supply. If he had control of Kuwait's oil reserves, it would be a significant step toward overtaking Saudi Arabia as the #1 supplier in the world.

Any war where you attempt to gain land is a territorial war. It might be for economic purposes, but it is still a territorial war. An economic war is much different. That would involve knocking off each other's ability to trade or their economic infrastructure (like factories).

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 05:14 PM
spl_cadet:



Any war where you attempt to gain land is a territorial war. It might be for economic purposes, but it is still a territorial war. An economic war is much different. That would involve knocking off each other's ability to trade or their economic infrastructure (like factories).

We're talking about motives, though, not consequences. His motive for attacking Kuwait was economic, not territorial. Territorial expansion may be a consequence of such an act, but it wasn't what he was interested in.