OT: Liberation(?) of Iraq?

[Chris Phillipo]

> Kim Jong Il has thrown out the UN inspectors, removed cameras in the Yongbyon nuclear complex,
> abrogated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, torn up a 1999 agreement to stop testing long
> range missiles (ones that can reach the US, in fact), has said that any attempt to impose
> sanctions by the UNSC would be viewed as a declaration of war and is ****** at the US for renaging
> on a deal 1993, cutting off further negotiations in the GWB era and sees the positioning of cruise
> missiles in Alaska as a direct threat. And you're more worried about Saddam Hussein. I'm
> astonished...
>
>

If the USA is now in the business of overriding the UN and preemptively striking countries with
their WMD that have been accumulating unchecked for 60 years, I'd like to know where I could get
some intercontinental ballistic missiles too.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Pete Jones]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:55:50 -0400, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> blathered:

>> >But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The
>> >diplomacy that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion
>> >as well. If we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group
>> >of countries just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have
>> >we set?
>>
>> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in
>> the UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would soon
>> become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could do what
>> obviously needs to be done.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/opi-
nion/2003/03/23/ixop.html

Obviously a CIA agitator, eh?

----
http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/

 

[Paladin]

"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Paladin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > In this case, at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam admitted to multi-thousands of barrels of no-no
> > weaponry, and we saw a lot of it in ground and sattelite photos. He promised to disclose it all,
> > and then to destroy it all under U.N. supervision. He failed both, and continued to procure and
> > produce.
>
>
> > Those failures, coupled with what must be good intelligence on his intentions to use the WOMD,
> > justifies putting him down.
>
> > The side benefit of liberating the people is just extraneous icing on the cake.
>
>
> So, not 'a near-heroic act' at all then.
>
Actually, YES, of course it is, when viewed from *their* perspective, which was the sole purpose of
my post--to show that a single action can be viewed from many perspectives.

(I will grant you that the so-called name of this war, "Iraqi Freedom" is hypocritical. Our goal is
not so much to free the Iraquis, as to excise a very dangerous cancer on the world stage.)

Our perspective is to expend a ton of money and effort (and some lives, unfortunately) *now* to
avoid another 9-11 incident on a greater scale in the future, which would likely have a much, much
higher toll than this war.

OTOH, the Iranians' personal interest would be served by our heroic acts in liberating them so that
their lives can be lived free of fear, terror and oppression. They're not as concerned with whether
their regime exports terrorism, a fact that they have no control over and which does not immediately
bear on their lives. Their concern is their own freedom, and who can blame them?

So, sorry if the post wasn't clear. In the present case with Saddam, the world will be a hopefully
much safer place, and the primary, daily victims of Saddam, his subjects, will be freed.

Paladin Debate and discussion are good things.
>
> Shaun aRe

 

[Paladin]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>CleanBean says:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My kids ask me why we don't invade India who now has nukes. I tell them it all has to do with
> >>>how responsible the leadership of the country is and how abusive they are with their power.
> >>
> >>I'm not trying to bash Dubya here, Bean, but I wonder on that basis how soon we should look for
> >>an invasion here.
> >
> >
> > Kim Jong Il will be a lot easier to negotiate with in a room with Saddam's hide tacked to
> > the wall.
> >
>
> How do you know that? How do you know that China and Russia won't defend him? How do you know that
> he won't want to go out in a blaze of glory?
>
> I don't think that Bush had any intention of letting diplomacy work in Iraq.

No Kidding! You got that right! Them hot-headed Texans, no patience! No faith in the system! If he
had any intention of letting diplomacy work, he would have waited *another 12 years* and insisted on
at least *fourteen more U.N. resolutions.* After all, we'd be safe while the diplomats danced and
debated. No one would be threatened by Iraq's growing nuclear capability, or its un-destroyed and
undisclosed WMD's.

Those U.N. resolutions could be air-dropped over every major city in the world and used as gas masks
and flak vests to protect from an Iraqi-led or Iraqi-sponsored attack.

Paladin So I believe Kim Jong Il will have a fatalistic view and send some
> nukes off as a parting gesture.
>
> Greg

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> (I will grant you that the so-called name of this war, "Iraqi Freedom" is hypocritical. Our goal
> is not so much to free the Iraquis, as to excise a very dangerous cancer on the world stage.)
>
> Our perspective is to expend a ton of money and effort (and some lives, unfortunately) *now* to
> avoid another 9-11 incident on a greater scale in the future, which would likely have a much, much
> higher toll than this war.
>

Good luck, given that actions like these were said to be the catalyst for the 9/11 attack according
to Bin Laden himself. I belive it was Mark that said something like; we (meaning Americans) could
withdraw from every country in the world and just mind our own business and we would still be enemy
number one. Well that may be true but out of sight out of mind really applies here, once people like
Bin Laden are dead (from old age), then I find it hard to beleive that there would be enough hatred
harboured in the region for America if there was no American presence mucking things up for them.

> OTOH, the Iranians' personal interest would be served by our heroic acts in liberating them so
> that their lives can be lived free of fear, terror and oppression. They're not as concerned with
> whether their regime exports terrorism, a fact that they have no control over and which does not
> immediately bear on their lives. Their concern is their own freedom, and who can blame them?
>
> So, sorry if the post wasn't clear. In the present case with Saddam, the world will be a hopefully
> much safer place, and the primary, daily victims of Saddam, his subjects, will be freed.

The US controlling the (formerly) 2nd and 4th largest oil producing countries in Opec and using them
to make Opec irrelavant is not going to make anything in this world safe except the US dollar.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> > > [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>CleanBean says:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>My kids ask me why we don't invade India who now has nukes. I tell them it all has to do with
> > >>>how responsible the leadership of the country is and how abusive they are with their power.
> > >>
> > >>I'm not trying to bash Dubya here, Bean, but I wonder on that basis how soon we should look
> > >>for an invasion here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kim Jong Il will be a lot easier to negotiate with in a room with Saddam's hide tacked to the
> > > wall.
> > >
> >
> > How do you know that? How do you know that China and Russia won't defend him? How do you know
> > that he won't want to go out in a blaze of glory?
> >
> > I don't think that Bush had any intention of letting diplomacy work in Iraq.
>
> No Kidding! You got that right! Them hot-headed Texans, no patience! No faith in the system! If he
> had any intention of letting diplomacy work, he would have waited *another 12 years* and insisted
> on at least *fourteen more U.N. resolutions.* After all, we'd be safe while the diplomats danced
> and debated. No one would be threatened by Iraq's growing nuclear capability, or its un-destroyed
> and undisclosed WMD's.
>

Iraq was closer to having nuclear capacity whent hey actually had a reactor in 1981, the US had no
problem witht hat at the time, thankfully the Iraelis did.

> Those U.N. resolutions could be air-dropped over every major city in the world and used as gas
> masks and flak vests to protect from an Iraqi-led or Iraqi-sponsored attack.

The Iraqis would ignore them just as Bush does so no sense wasting good paper.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Bb]

On 25 Mar 2003 09:11:34 -0800, Paladin wrote:
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> So, not 'a near-heroic act' at all then.
>>
> Actually, YES, of course it is, when viewed from *their* perspective, which was the sole purpose
> of my post--to show that a single action can be viewed from many perspectives.

Hmm, I took Shaun's post to mean that your error was in using the word "near".

> Our perspective is to expend a ton of money and effort (and some lives, unfortunately) *now* to
> avoid another 9-11 incident on a greater scale in the future, which would likely have a much, much
> higher toll than this war.

You have no idea how much I would like to see a reference that shows the legality of this
perspective.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Dave H]

"MattB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On 24 Mar 2003 10:43:53 -0800, Paladin wrote:

> >
> > But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The
> > diplomacy that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion
> > as well. If we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group
> > of countries just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have
> > we set?
> >
>
> Yep. I feel the same way. Does the end justify the means? Which world leader will make a similar
> decision next and take to action without the blessing of the UN? GW has just set precedent that
> basically made the UN's approval optional. Didn't we just participate in the bombing of
> Milosevic's regime because he wouldn't comply with the UN?

The UN failed to act in this case as well. With pushing from the US, NATO and some European counties
finally stepped up to stop the hoodlum. As far as the Un being the place for world security it is
not. The UN should stick to what it does best waste money as it gives lip service to humanitarian
endeavors.

>
> I agree Sadam is bad guy and the world would be a better place without him. I'm just saddened and
> worried by the way this took place. I wonder what sort of world I just brought my son into...

A world that will be safer than the one you grew up in hopefully, on less criminal heading
a country.

>
> Damn. I wasn't going to get into political discussions here. Sorry.
>
> Matt

 

[Jeremy Henderso]

On 25/3/03 2:15 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark Hickey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in
>>> the UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would
>>> soon become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could
>>> do what obviously needs to be done.
>>
>> Hmmm, and where are those WsMD now?
>
> Patience, grasshopper. If there's one thing in this world you can have faith in, it's Saddam's
> ability to kill people.
>
>>> If and when the UN ever gets its collective act together, and acknowledges that Saddam HAD to be
>>> taken down, North Korea and Iran will be a lot more likely to cooperate diplomatically, having
>>> seen the consequences of noncompliance.
>>>
>>> Or, like I said, we can all just sit back and wait to see what creative ways the fringe groups
>>> (and no, not just Al Qaeda) can think up to kill millions of civilians to "get their message to
>>> the world".
>
>> And you don't think there are going to more fringe groups now? Instead of one rich financier with
>> bin Laden, we'll have dozens.
>
> The current action is (IMHO) the end of the fringe group mentality. Hopefully democracies in
> Afghanistan and Iraq will spawn critical thought from within the "Arab street" in which their
> problems aren't all laid on others. If the economy and well-being of the citizens of Afghanistan
> and Iraq stand out in sharp contrast to those still mired in monarchy or heavy-handed religious
> leadership (did I really say that?) the opinion of the "street" will turn.

Which democracies are they? Does the US have a record in intervening militarily and leaving a
democracy? More likely there will be civil war and the emergence of a new dictator who will be
accepted because people will prefer ANYONE to the continuing turmoil. No doubt the CIA will be busy
arming one or many factions. Sounds like ... Err ... Afghanistan.

J.

 

[Jeremy Henderso]

On 25/3/03 4:46 pm, in article [email protected], "Pete Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:55:50 -0400, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> blathered:
>
>>>> But we are not the world police. It is not our job to deal with horrible dictators. The
>>>> diplomacy that led up to this event was pitiful, not just by the Americans but by the oppostion
>>>> as well. If we have the right to decide some dictator needs to be taken out, then can ANY group
>>>> of countries just get together and take out whoever they desire? What sort of precedence have
>>>> we set?
>>>
>>> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in
>>> the UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would
>>> soon become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could
>>> do what obviously needs to be done.
>
> http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/d
> o2305.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html
>
> Obviously a CIA agitator, eh?

Worse - a Torygraph writer. Maybe he should have stuck around a while - he could have joined the
marines in their hunt for Macdonalds:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,921393,00.html

J.

 

[Paladin]

Pete Jones walked softly, but carried a BIG STICK:
>
> http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/o-
> pinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html
>
> Obviously a CIA agitator, eh?
>
> ----
> http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/

That says it all, and far more eloquently than thousands of university students skipping school in
search of a cause.

Paladin

 

[Mark Hickey]

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] says...

>> One in which the right thing will be done, IMHO. The endless and pointless diplomatic dance in
>> the UN could go on until hell freezes over and Saddam would still be building WMD, and would soon
>> become a nuclear power. We could have "played the game" for another 12 years, or we could do what
>> obviously needs to be done.
>
>So what? Israel is a nuclear power, Pakastan in a nuclear power, India is a nuclear power. Those
>three countries are currently engaged in hostilities in the region and haven't nuked anyone. Iraq
>was contained just as Cuba has been for 50 years. God help us if they strike oil in Cuba.

Israel isn't going to nuke anyone (though they'd last about 10 minutes if they didn't have nukes).
Pakistan and India aren't going to nuke anyone other than perhaps each other (and that's pretty
unlikely). These are not countries run by self-appointed tyrants.

Iraq was contained militarily, but you can't contain VX or anthrax. And you can't trust Saddam to
"play nice", unless you're really naive that is... ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The current action is (IMHO) the end of the fringe group mentality. Hopefully democracies in
>> Afghanistan and Iraq will spawn critical thought from within the "Arab street" in which their
>> problems aren't all laid on others. If the economy and well-being of the citizens of Afghanistan
>> and Iraq stand out in sharp contrast to those still mired in monarchy or heavy-handed religious
>> leadership (did I really say that?) the opinion of the "street" will turn.

>I bet the communists thought they were doing everyone a favor by converting governments to their
>way of thinking too. Do you really think if Iraq is run by a special interest driven two party
>system like the USA is it is going to turn out all roses and puppy dog tails in the end?

It's going to take time - but I don't fear the collective will of the citizens of ANY country. I
only fear the will of the leaders with no accountability to their countrymen.

Politics is politics, and it's never squeaky clean. But with two parties watching each other like
hawks, any excesses of one will be front page news by the other in hours. In the end, it sets up an
inherent set of checks and balances.

Another way to look at it - it ain't gonna be any worse.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The current action is (IMHO) the end of the fringe group mentality. Hopefully democracies in
>> Afghanistan and Iraq will spawn critical thought from within the "Arab street" in which their
>> problems aren't all laid on others. If the economy and well-being of the citizens of Afghanistan
>> and Iraq stand out in sharp contrast to those still mired in monarchy or heavy-handed religious
>> leadership (did I really say that?) the opinion of the "street" will turn.
>
>Which democracies are they? Does the US have a record in intervening militarily and leaving a
>democracy? More likely there will be civil war and the emergence of a new dictator who will be
>accepted because people will prefer ANYONE to the continuing turmoil. No doubt the CIA will be busy
>arming one or many factions. Sounds like ... Err ... Afghanistan.

Or Iraq. At the time, it looked as if Saddam might bring reform to Iraq. And Osama looked like a
better bet than Afghaistan becoming one of the "Russiastans".

The stakes are different now, and Bush has served notice that "politics as usual" don't apply any
more. I expect there will be a lot more transparancy - but feel free to rub my nose in it if it
doesn't work out that way.

Think how cool it will be if Iraq's very capable population cranks up an economy that makes Israel
look like an also-ran. That, IMHO will be the true measure of success.

Oh, if you want examples of where this has worked, you might consider Japan and Germany.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Kim Jong Il is an opportunist, but he's not a deranged madman (though he certainly does have his
>> faults). The only tactic he has right now is bluff and bluster. I think GWB is handling it
>> masterfully, telling KJI to go hump someone else's leg, and telling China and Russia to "deal
>> with it". Neither want to deal with Iraq's WMD? Fine. They can handle North Korea alone instead.
>
>Kim Jong Il has thrown out the UN inspectors, removed cameras in the Yongbyon nuclear complex,
>abrogated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, torn up a 1999 agreement to stop testing long range
>missiles (ones that can reach the US, in fact), has said that any attempt to impose sanctions by
>the UNSC would be viewed as a declaration of war and is ****** at the US for renaging on a deal
>1993, cutting off further negotiations in the GWB era and sees the positioning of cruise missiles
>in Alaska as a direct threat. And you're more worried about Saddam Hussein. I'm astonished...

Why worry? Just run it by the UN Security Council. We should be able to get North Korea under
control by this time next century. Isn't that the way you'd like us to handle NK?

NK is an Asian problem. Time for Russia and China to get some skin in the game, don't you think?
Don't want to "look too unilateral" and all.

As soon as China and Russia are on board, KJI will be taken behind the woodshed. Until then, he's
more of a nuisance than a threat, IMHO. There's no possibility of him selling a nuke to someone to
use on us (since it would be easily traced back), and AFAIK he has no other chemical and biological
weapons programs. He's also not likely to want to actually fire a nuke at us, since Pyonyang would
get melted into a big glass ball if that happens - and he's not suicidal.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Pete Jones]

On 25 Mar 2003 15:09:56 -0800, [email protected] (Paladin) blathered:

>> http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/-
>> opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html
>
>That says it all, and far more eloquently than thousands of university students skipping school in
>search of a cause.

I find it amusing that the human shield volunteers who went to Iraq in a bus from London were
expecting to be placed in hospitals etc, but have found instead themselves lounging around in
refineries and industrial targets. It kind of shows where the regime's priorities are. It's doubly
ironic when you realise the Coalition is bending over backwards not to hit such targets, in order to
preserve a working infrastructure for after the war - even at the cost of its own troops' lives.

Saddam Hussein must be scratching his head over the phenomonen of volunteer human shields. Last time
he had to kidnap them. I worked with an ex-human shield in 1994, a Canadian helicopter pilot. He
wasn't so enthusiastic about Saddam Hussein; perhaps losing a third of your bodyweight and being
beaten on a daily basis changes your perspective.

The problem is, that article I linked was in a rightwing paper called the Telegraph (which,
incidentally, I don't read, preferring The Times). People like Jeremy, when confronted with a fact
that doesn't fit into their view, simply dismiss it as rightwing propoganda.

War is not nice. Some soldiers are undoubtedly Big Mac chomping assholes. Come up with an
alternative.

----
http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/

 

[Bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Israel isn't going to nuke anyone (though they'd last about 10 minutes if they didn't have nukes).
> Pakistan and India aren't going to nuke anyone other than perhaps each other (and that's pretty
> unlikely). These are not countries run by self-appointed tyrants.

I think you'll find Pakistan is.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

BB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 25 Mar 2003 09:11:34 -0800, Paladin wrote:
> > "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> So, not 'a near-heroic act' at all then.
> >>
> > Actually, YES, of course it is, when viewed from *their* perspective, which was the sole purpose
> > of my post--to show that a single action can be viewed from many perspectives.
>
> Hmm, I took Shaun's post to mean that your error was in using the word "near".

It was in using the word 'heroic' in the context he pu it in, then saying that the liberation of the
Iraqi people was just a side effect, 'the icing on the cake' - the two don't fit together. It was a
semantics thing.

Shaun aRe

 

[Bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Why worry? Just run it by the UN Security Council. We should be able to get North Korea under
> control by this time next century. Isn't that the way you'd like us to handle NK?

North Korea was under control of the UN until the Bush administration cut all negotiations with
them, started threatening them and placed them in the 'Axis of Evil'.

> NK is an Asian problem. Time for Russia and China to get some skin in the game, don't you think?
> Don't want to "look too unilateral" and all.

Perhaps you don't understand this. NK does not have a problem with Russia or China, and vice versa.
NK's problem lies very much with the US.

> As soon as China and Russia are on board, KJI will be taken behind the woodshed. Until then, he's
> more of a nuisance than a threat, IMHO. There's no possibility of him selling a nuke to someone to
> use on us (since it would be easily traced back),

But surely the damage would have been done by then? Why not take them out before that possibility
arises? Surely it would be in the best intersts to remove any possibility of these weapons being
used against the US, before the chance arises. Why, you could institute a regime change too.

and AFAIK he has no other
> chemical and biological weapons programs. He's also not likely to want to actually fire a nuke at
> us, since Pyonyang would get melted into a big glass ball if that happens - and he's not suicidal.

Yes, but he's not exactly stable either.

I agree with certain parts of your argument - KJI is playing a game at the moment, but it's a game
he's been forced in to by the US administration - the question is, how far can he be pushed?

The other thing you have to bear in mind is that the 'melting of Pyonyang in to a big glass ball' is
not an easy option. Fallout from explosions would certainly affect the US's allies, South Korea and
Japan, not to mention China and Russia. None of whom would be too impressed, I'm sure. Perhaps KJI
has a better hand than you imagine.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

Paladin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Paladin <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > In this case, at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam admitted to multi-thousands of barrels of
> > > no-no weaponry, and we saw a lot of it in ground and sattelite photos. He promised to disclose
> > > it all, and then to destroy it all under U.N. supervision. He failed both, and continued to
> > > procure and produce.
> >
> >
> > > Those failures, coupled with what must be good intelligence on his intentions to use the WOMD,
> > > justifies putting him down.
> >
> > > The side benefit of liberating the people is just extraneous icing on the cake.
> >
> >
> > So, not 'a near-heroic act' at all then.
> >
> Actually, YES, of course it is, when viewed from *their* perspective, which was the sole purpose
> of my post--to show that a single action can be viewed from many perspectives.

Sounds like a re-direction after the fact to me ',;~}

> (I will grant you that the so-called name of this war, "Iraqi Freedom" is hypocritical. Our goal
> is not so much to free the Iraquis, as to excise a very dangerous cancer on the world stage.)
>
> Our perspective is to expend a ton of money and effort (and some lives, unfortunately) *now* to
> avoid another 9-11 incident on a greater scale in the future, which would likely have a much, much
> higher toll than this war.
>
> OTOH, the Iranians' personal interest would be served by our heroic acts in liberating them so
> that their lives can be lived free of fear, terror and oppression. They're not as concerned with
> whether their regime exports terrorism, a fact that they have no control over and which does not
> immediately bear on their lives. Their concern is their own freedom, and who can blame them?
>
> So, sorry if the post wasn't clear. In the present case with Saddam, the world will be a hopefully
> much safer place, and the primary, daily victims of Saddam, his subjects, will be freed.
>
> Paladin Debate and discussion are good things.

So, what do you make of these things in the light of the links Bomba posted?

Shaun aRe