Do you think this cartoon is correct?

[Adam Smith]

To me the situation looks a bit more like this

[KrazyHorse]

Some of us are weighing the consequences against the benefits. The cost in civilian lives (and, believe it or not, Iraqi soldiers' lives also count) was enormous the first time. Why would it be any different this time round?

[KrazyHorse]

So, say...200 000 civilians die this time. IMO, that's probably on the low side. Weigh that against what probability that Saddam will actually gain some serious WoMD (talking nuclear or a shitload of chem) and use them against his neighbours times the amount of deaths likely to result.

I'd place the probability at <1/1000 and the likely deaths at less than 2 million ...

[Ramo]

And some of us are examining the possible benefits of the removal of Saddam wrt to the future welfare of the people of Iraq (specifically the autonomous, Kurdish North).

[Gatekeeper]

Well, Frogger, using that cost/benefit ratio, why bother with anything at all?

I'm sure there are certain Kurds, Iranians and Kuwaitis who might be a wee bit leery of using your c/b analysis. But what the hey! We don't live over there. Saddam, if he ever does use his WMD, won't gas our families, will he? His troops won't pillage our homes, rape our women, will they!

Oh, hey! According to my c/b analysis, arguing this with you isn't worth the time or the cost. A nice, thick book beckons!

Gatekeeper

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Well, Frogger, using that cost/benefit ratio, why bother with anything at all?

I'm sure there are certain Kurds, Iranians and Kuwaitis who might be a wee bit leery of using your c/b analysis. But what the hey! We don't live over there. Saddam, if he ever does use his WMD, won't gas our families, will he? His troops won't pillage our homes, rape our women, will they!

And our women and children also won't die when we start bombing, now will they?

Huh? You don't think that this is how decisions get made?

Pakistan has nukes. Why shouldn't we remove Musharref, a dictator?

We don't remove all risks because some just aren't worth it. If I could snap my fingers and kick Saddam out on the streets, then replace him with a democratic, rights-oriented government, I'd do it today.

[Ramo]

The Kuwaiti and Iranian gov't's are oppressive, and not substantially different from Iraq's (though recently, they've made some advances).

As for the Kurds, they have autonomy, thanks to the status quo (namely the no-fly zones). If Saddam goes, either Kurdistan declares independence and Turkey invades or the new government in Baghdad reconquers the North.

Until we make definite committments regarding autonomy or independence for Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, we're not doing anything but screwing over the Iraqi people even more by invading.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Frogger
Pakistan has nukes. Why shouldn't we remove Musharref, a dictator?

Because Musharref has proven himself to be very open to persausion from the international community plus he has never stated an offensive war nor used chemical weapons against anyone. Sure he's a dictator but as Macheovelli might have said he is an "enlightened" dictator.

[Drake Tungsten]

The sad truth is that Musharraf is far less authoritarian than his democratically elected predecessors.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
he has never stated an offensive war

I remember him having come damn close to starting one less than 6 months ago. And Saddam's last use of chem weapons was 15? years ago. He could have used them against Israel or US troops in Gulf 1. I think he's demonstrated that he's willing to use chem weapons...unless somebody (US) would stop him, like in 1991...

[Ramo]

Saddam was never seriously reprimanded by the international community for using chemical weapons. Saddam knew what he could get away with it, so he did it. But he didn't use chemical weapons in the Gulf War because he obviously knows the limitations of real politik. He's not trigger happy and wants to stay in power, so won't use nukes.

[KrazyHorse]

Beat you to it...

If, on the other hand, he had nothing to lose then he would. Just like any other nuke-armed country...

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhoo, he's about a million miles from building a real nuke.

[Ramo]

Yep. Or ICBM's.

[Oerdin]

Saddam didn't use Chemical or Biological weapons during the Gulf War because both John Major and Bush the elder said they would Nuke every square inch of Iraq if he did. In that case it would have been very easy to determine if the Iraqis used WoMD but with a suit case Nuclear bomb or even a dirty car bomb we couldn't tell if it was Iraq that was responsible or not. Thus there would be little to no deterent against Saddam using them as a terrorist weapon.

[Ramo]

Why would he possibly do that? Saddam would be risking his ass by the possibility of the revelation of the source of the attack, as well as mobilizing American opinion for his removal even if evidence isn't found (see how the WTC attack changed American attitudes on Iraq, even though he wasn't even remotely involved), for no concievable gain.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Saddam didn't use Chemical or Biological weapons during the Gulf War because both John Major and Bush the elder said they would Nuke every square inch of Iraq if he did. In that case it would have been very easy to determine if the Iraqis used WoMD but with a suit case Nuclear bomb or even a dirty car bomb we couldn't tell if it was Iraq that was responsible or not. Thus there would be little to no deterent against Saddam using them as a terrorist weapon.

I remember a whole bunch of people talking **** about the Iraqis using terrorism against the US during Gulf 1. I also remember it not happening.

[Asher]

The US should save its breath and forget Iraq and focus on Canada. It's much closer and easier.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Thus there would be little to no deterent against Saddam using them as a terrorist weapon.

Just a side note here: why is lobbing the weapon via ICBM non-terrorist while using it covertly is?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
The US should save its breath and forget Iraq and focus on Canada. It's much closer and easier.

If the US invaded Canada I'd fly out to Calgary and lynch you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
If the US invaded Canada I'd fly out to Calgary and lynch you.

I look forward to it.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Frogger
And our women and children also won't die when we start bombing, now will they?

Huh? You don't think that this is how decisions get made?

Realpolitik. That's all it seems to be coming down to. In this case, U.S. realpolitik appears to be at odds with what much of the rest of the world views as realpolitik, at least in terms of Iraq.

We don't remove all risks because some just aren't worth it. If I could snap my fingers and kick Saddam out on the streets, then replace him with a democratic, rights-oriented government, I'd do it today.

But since that's not possible, it's better to just leave the man alone? Hell. If we don't pop him, I bet Israel will. They won't let him get nuclear weapons.

Hmm. Maybe that's an idea. Let's just leave Iraq alone — eventually Israel will take him out. That way the world can blame Israel for f*cking up the strategic status quo in the Middle East, huh? Then America can sit on the sidelines with the rest of the planet and pooh-pooh Israel for being such an aggressive little country.

Gatekeeper

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Asher
The US should save its breath and forget Iraq and focus on Canada. It's much closer and easier.

We're going for the Civ3 style cultural assimilation on that front.

[Oerdin]

Every day Saddam has his anti-aircraft guns shot at allied planes and he has declared "total war" against the U.S. until the northern and sourthern no fly zones as well as the sanctions are lifted. One could be forgiven for thinking that Saddam's idea of total war would include terrorist attacks. Especially since he has already tried to assinate ex-President Bush on two different occations and allows internationally known terrorists safe haven in his country plus he gives money to Palestinian suicide bombers who murder women and children.

[KrazyHorse]

Saddam is full of hot air.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why would he possibly do that? Saddam would be risking his ass by the possibility of the revelation of the source of the attack, as well as mobilizing American opinion for his removal even if evidence isn't found (see how the WTC attack changed American attitudes on Iraq, even though he wasn't even remotely involved), for no concievable gain.

Not remotely involved? F'n Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials scant months before 9/11!! Smart Americans have always realized the threat Saddam poses. We just finally have an excuse to clean up George H.W.'s mess. See, we Americans aren't barbarians - we, too, need a real, valid pretext for a war. And, we have it now. If you really think Saddam won't use nukes, you are kidding yourselves. We are dealing with an irrational megalomaniac. He has spit in the face of every attempt the international community has made to monitor his arms program. I don't know about anyone else, but this raises a HUGE red flag to me - why is he denying access if he has nothing to hide? He obviously is trying like hell to acquire these weapons to use them - why else has he hidden his arms program from the rest of the world? You all need to realize that it won't just be NYC - if Saddam gets nukes, it could be NYC, Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Madrid that get hit. Now, likely he'll align with you socialist Euros over there and just strike America, but who knows what he's really trying to do?

Hey gatekeeper, great posts

[Ramo]

Not remotely involved? F'n Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials scant months before 9/11!!

Federal law agents said they found no evidence for this back in April. It was a rumor.

We are dealing with an irrational megalomaniac.

Then why didn't he use chemical weapons in the Gulf War?

He has spit in the face of every attempt the international community has made to monitor his arms program.

Huh? Saddam has been making overtures to the US for arms inspections recently.

[Ramo]

I might add that the idea Saddam participated with al Qaeda in 9/11 is particularly ludicrous since they hate his guts (being relatively secular after all).

[Drake Tungsten]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

[Skanky Burns]

An enemy of an enemy is probably crazy enough to start attacking me too.