[CP5670]

That is exactly what I think as well. Also, contrary to what some claim, Hussein is no "rational survivior" as someone like Musharraf is; he has shown himself throughout history to be exactly the opposite, almost as suicidal as bin Laden himself. (and some unusual behavior and possibly a tinge of madness is reflected in his lifestyle )

[Stryke 9]

Uh... HOW has he shown himself suicidal? By baiting the UN when he knew nothing would be done? By assuming, after the US had just helped him in a long war against Iran, that we wouldn't object if he went for Kuwait? By conceding to UN demands whenever it became clear that he'd become screwed otherwise? By covering his ass scrupulously throughout his entire reign, in such a way that he seems excessively paranoid even under the circumstances? His one real risk is his opposition to the US, which is careful at best and hardly extends beyond a few fiery speeches.

He's a smart, tough dictator with his own interests very much at heart. He's thoroughly lucid, realizes fully that he cannot possibly benefit from any attack on his part, or any terrorist attack that will inevitably get linked to him whether he sponsored it or not. Blathering about how crazy he is simply reflects a shallow understanding of 20th-century politics and a dangerous degree of selective ignorance, the sort that leads into world wars.

[Stealth]

that's all bull**** i believe... if the world IS going to go into war again, then writing a few names down isn't going to stop it

[Stealth]

EDIT:

Sandwich already posted it

[Stryke 9]

Sandwich posted that a long way back.

[Stealth]

i skimmed the thread... i never read long threads, unless i've kept up with them from when they started, which i hadn't in this case

[CP5670]

Uh... HOW has he shown himself suicidal? By baiting the UN when he knew nothing would be done? By assuming, after the US had just helped him in a long war against Iran, that we wouldn't object if he went for Kuwait? By conceding to UN demands whenever it became clear that he'd become screwed otherwise? By covering his ass scrupulously throughout his entire reign, in such a way that he seems excessively paranoid even under the circumstances? His one real risk is his opposition to the US, which is careful at best and hardly extends beyond a few fiery speeches.

bah, he knew well that he would anger the US and the western world by doing that, as he was under quite a bit pressure from them before the events. (this was well after the end of the Iraq-Iran war) Then again, you stated an important thing yourself: there is the open opposition to the US and official support for the 9/11 event. (the only nation who did that; even the Taliban was not that openly hostile) This is the last thing that anyone with any bit of "survival instinct" would do right after a superpower has gotten mad, so he is either suicidal or very stupid, and I would be inclined to go for the former seeing how long he has been around.

He's a smart, tough dictator with his own interests very much at heart. He's thoroughly lucid, realizes fully that he cannot possibly benefit from any attack on his part, or any terrorist attack that will inevitably get linked to him whether he sponsored it or not. Blathering about how crazy he is simply reflects a shallow understanding of 20th-century politics and a dangerous degree of selective ignorance, the sort that leads into world wars.

Exactly, and so is bin Laden; it is just that those interests require suicidal schemes. Now I will not say he is crazy, but then again I do not think anyone can be conclusively proven to be (bin Laden inclusive); but he is unusual at any rate (and in a bad way for us), as can be easily seen by what is said about his personal life in all of these articles about him, even those that are anti-war. Look at Musharraf for an example of a "survivor" type of dictator, and compare him to this guy. Also, I wouldn't really be talking about ignorance and shallowness here; true ignorance is what this "peace for its own sake" madness comes from. Mind you, there are good reasons for not going into Iraq (although outweighed by those for the opposite action), but most of the supporters of that view always choose the worst arguments for debating their cause.

[Stryke 9]

1. So he's principled. It's one mistake he made (if you can call it a "mistake"). Doesn't make him suicidal by a long shot

2. No, I suppose Bin Laden isn't suicidal precisely. But he's actively attacking the US, rather than simply voicing his disgust at it, and there's quite a big difference, in terms of what generally provokes a war.

3. Uh... what? I'm no peacenik- I just only like wars with causes I can get behind, like another American revolution. I don't think Saddam needs to be ****ed with, I don't wanna end up in a draft-type situation, and I don't think war is always necessary- doesn't mean I condemn war in general, by any means. I was flyin' during the Pentagon attacks, because there was all this screaming about the government collapsing and an invasion on the radio, and if anyone had a cohesive assault on Washington ready, I wanted to be part of it, no matter what the cause was.

[CP5670]

1. So he's principled. It's one mistake he made (if you can call it a "mistake"). Doesn't make him suicidal by a long shot.

Then it must make him very stupid; take your pick. Strict adherence to any sort of specialized principle regardless of the situation is extremely foolish, although it could be construed as suicidal in this particular case.

2. No, I suppose Bin Laden isn't suicidal precisely. But he's actively attacking the US, rather than simply voicing his disgust at it, and there's quite a big difference, in terms of what generally provokes a war.

Well, he is to some extent anyway; if he did care for his own life then he would just keep his disgust to himself. (not that there is anything stupid in doing otherwise; it is just not a "survival instinct") And words, when used correctly and at the right time, can be more effective than blows in getting someone angry, especally in the world of international politics, and I cannot think of a better way of doing that than to support the 9/11 thing just a few days after the incident.

3. Uh... what? I'm no peacenik- I just only like wars with causes I can get behind, like another American revolution. I don't think Saddam needs to be ****ed with, I don't wanna end up in a draft-type situation, and I don't think war is always necessary- doesn't mean I condemn war in general, by any means. I was flyin' during the Pentagon attacks, because there was all this screaming about the government collapsing and an invasion on the radio, and if anyone had a cohesive assault on Washington ready, I wanted to be part of it, no matter what the cause was.

Well, use a different argument, then. Although I don't see why they would need to draft a whole lot of men this time; the technological difference is well more than enough to compensate for the fanatical tendencies of the iraqi armies, and there is not exactly a great need of extra men at the moment.

[Galemp]

EDIT Damn, I was posting the same thing Sandwich was...

[Stryke 9]

Hell, you KNOW if Bush gets his way on Iraq, he's gonna want another country after that. And another, and another. He's a dictator in grand old form, make no mistake- the name's different, the behavior's not, and it's important to note that about Bush. Thus, I don't wanna get drafted, either for invading Iraq, Pakistan, Korea, or France (well, okay, I wouldn't mind France).

Wait- WHY would I wanna use "a different argument"? A war against Saddam simply because Bush I and he had a bit of a tiff is just plain bad. Essentially forcing a man who has MDWs but no real motivation to use them to apply them to several cities I could name is bad. Giving many of the countries in the world an excuse to go at each other on a nuclear scale, as "preemption", is bad. War itself is not always the worst thing in the world- it's never good, but at times it's the lesser evil. Right now, with Iraq, it's not, so why have one?

Not really. Plenty of people oppose America. Lookit Cuba, right off our border, with much more power to do the US direct harm than Iraq has.
Sure, words can start trouble, but his HAVEN'T, and they WON'T. Everyone knows what Saddam thinks about America- if that was the motivating factor for anything, that thing would have happened by now. He's losing credibility, if anything.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
EDIT Damn, I was posting the same thing Sandwich was...

Seems to happen around here...

[Stealth]

yeah, thanks to you  thanks for adjusting my avatars btw

[CP5670]

Hell, you KNOW if Bush gets his way on Iraq, he's gonna want another country after that. And another, and another. He's a dictator in grand old form, make no mistake- the name's different, the behavior's not, and it's important to note that about Bush. Thus, I don't wanna get drafted, either for invading Iraq, Pakistan, Korea, or France (well, okay, I wouldn't mind France).

Of course; he can want another country, and this is perfectly fine, since he will once again need to rally up the usual popular support to do anything. We can use him here and oppose the other events when the time comes; he is not going to get any stronger by conquering Iraq, but it will help the rest of us. Although actually, this will be a good thing in a way, since it would unite the world anyway and bring about the peace everyone keeps screaming about once and for all.

Wait- WHY would I wanna use "a different argument"? A war against Saddam simply because Bush I and he had a bit of a tiff is just plain bad. Essentially forcing a man who has MDWs but no real motivation to use them to apply them to several cities I could name is bad. Giving many of the countries in the world an excuse to go at each other on a nuclear scale, as "preemption", is bad. War itself is not always the worst thing in the world- it's never good, but at times it's the lesser evil. Right now, with Iraq, it's not, so why have one?

Because the current one just boils down to the same old "peace!!!!1" thing in a disguise. Instead, I can see a much better argument in saying something like "immediate concentration of forces on Pakistan is a better idea instead of waiting for Iraq to go down first" or "encourage and spur internal rebellions and use propagandic methods on Hussein's army for a year or two and then go in when everything is weakened by that." As for the last part, I say it is, or rather, there are other options, but war is not all that "bad" in the first place, and it clearly outclasses those.

Not really. Plenty of people oppose America. Lookit Cuba, right off our border, with much more power to do the US direct harm than Iraq has.

Individual citizens are of no importance for our purposes here, since they do not have the power to do anything other than whine, but this is the only nation (an organized unit) that opposes the US publicly and thus has the potential to actually cause asome damage. (since Hussein can order around his troops and men, his will effectively represents that of the nation until he starts losing influence and power)

Sure, words can start trouble, but his HAVEN'T, and they WON'T. Everyone knows what Saddam thinks about America- if that was the motivating factor for anything, that thing would have happened by now. He's losing credibility, if anything.

uh...they haven't? If he had went along with all the other nations and said the usual "we are all sorry for this tragedy...blah blah..." and temporarily helped the US in the "war on terror" just to get a good name, I really doubt that there would be any issue with Iraq right now.

It is of absolutely no importance what he really thinks - heck, half of the world was probably secretly overjoyed on 9/11 - but the different thing in this guy is that he is ready to show his dislike to the world and is not afraid to operate in the open, and that is what makes him either suicidal or a fool, dangerous in the first instance and an easy target in the second.

[CougEr]

Yes Vyper it was "spur"  of the moment intended.
My spelling mistake there.

Wow such a come back! And I must admit, such an informed come back. The replays did put me to shame.
 Maybe I  lost imterest in world events, maybe Australia is too far to really care, although the Bali thing did shake us a up a fair bit.

The skepticism about the eventuality of a third WW is frightning.

In retrospect though, if one would look at the previous two World conflicts and how they started, this particular time dosn't seem too different.

With Nations like India and Pakistan playing muscle with nukes, Terrorist attacks from extreeme Islam organization against the western world, the mother of all wars still bloody in Israel and Palestinia, the anreast of Africa, etc. etc...
One would have to feel  we are walking a pretty tight rope.
The media has become really cleaver at divoulging information,
So now we know. Heck! They even speculate about what could and should happen with accurate analitical reviews and case studies.

But don't ever forget 911.
 no one expected that.

It cought us off guard! It cought us in the middle of our trivial and mondain lives. And stopped the world on its tracks.

Suddenly we all knew how disinformed we really are and how helpless we can be even with mass media information which we now enjoy.
The media has a duty and responsibility to inform the masses.
 But unfortunately there are other vested interest in that simple equation...
 Finances. And for as high and as honourable anyone ideals might be, it will always have to succombe to the power and the influence of money.
Now I ask you... how reliable is the media at giving us first choice of unbiased information?
In 1981 I worked for 3 years, in the  NEWS ROOM of an Australian  TV network. I remember like yesterday when John Lenon was assassinated. That was the time of BLOODY BEIRUT, the Lebano war. My role was video tape editor. I was compiling the reports that would go to air every afternoon. I dealt with foreign correspondants, and local reporters. I learned how they would pick and choose the information in each story from the International reports coming daily from both England and America on world events. And because SBS TV is a federal Government TV network there was no financial interest or TV rating battle. Still, I had a much bigger body of information on hand than the one conveniently being put to air.
I guess the crack of this all issue is:
Don't underestimate the element of surprize.

I got that chain email from a trusted source. Usually I would junk it, but this time i guess I felt compelled to put my little bit in.
 It really was an honest action and sure enough invalidated.

I am happy however to see such a come back to this post.
 Thanks
 It's good to be back,
 spelling mistakes and all.

hehe
 
Coug!