Hi Nick,

I realize it's pretty rare when you enter the fray on this board - so I am going to be extra careful not to drive you away from making comments like the conservative club seems to do more often than not. I want to let you know I appreciate you viewpoint and am genuinely glad you chimed in....

...that said... ;-)

Unlike Hitler, Saddam has NOT been appeased. When he made his first "unauthorised" territorial grab in Kuwait, he was immediately engaged in conflict and his forces driven back within their borders. A clear signal was given that he could not reach out beyond his borders.

I agree with the first part, but disagree on the latter part. I think he just realized that he would need to have the bomb first to scare his opponents and the US into submission or paralysis. Projected to its logical conclusion Saddam wants to be able to perhaps take out Teheran or Riyadh and roll on in unhindered - a final "revenge" and "liberation" of land that should be Iraq's.

We folded up shop in Vietnam not out of cowardice or inability - but simply because we did not want to turn Vietnam into the first mutual nuclear playground.

If Saddam is armed with nukes - that same fear is reborn. Saddam can now march into Kuwait and if we force him back he blows up Tel Aviv or threatens to nuke the oil fields.

The US would listen to public opinion - and the whole world would say "No! You must not attack Saddam! They say that already now while he has bio-weaponry and are simply afraid gas will cost more! Just imagine how it is when he gets a few nukes under his belt. He can say, "I can survive a nuclear attack in my bunkers or elsewhere in the world and you will simply kill innocent people and irradiate the oil fields making them unworkable and sending the world into a economic depression the likes it has never seen."

This is what Saddam wants. This is why he does not believe Desert Storm was the definitive answer to his conquest plans.


(This, of course, acknowledges that his conflict with Iran was "authorised", which muddies the waters)



What has NOT been managed well is the continued hostility and sanctions. They have actually helped the Iraqi people unite behind Saddam, even if they don't much like him, in opposition to the "enemy outside". Had we been gentler with Iraq, the nation, we might have found that Saddam had a less strong grip by now.



The sanctions were almost totally designed to slow the "nonexistent"
nuclear program which they confessed to in 1992. They have done their job well - until a few years ago - when many nations in Europe and elsewhere decided that they wanted to make more money from Iraq. Humanitarian stories abound about the hardship of sanctions and yet it is Saddam's huge military expenditures which off-balance the entire medicine/food shortages. He is just like a Somalia warlord in that regard.


Another war will not lessen his grip, unless it ends like Berlin in 1945. The suffering this would inflict on the Iraqi people would be immense.

The suffering will be minimal in comparison to the eventual suffering caused by letting Saddam become a nuclear power. Look at India and Pakistan - they are less power crazed than Saddam - yet they are ready to nuke each other at any time, almost eagerly awaiting the opportunity to thin their populations into a more manageable number!


Personally, I'd prefer to call Saddam names, but leave Iraq free to trade and integrate with the world (while monitoring its activities closely to make sure they don't succeed in any new international transgressions).

This sounds very reasonable. However we simply can't monitor everything in this day and age. E-mails travel at light speed from nation to nation, flights can come and go at all hours of the day and night - at times when satellite identification (even if available at the time) is often inconclusive. Shipping is so unregulated and casual throughout the world that almost any item can pass through ports. If trade is free - Saddam's nuclear program would probably already be successful by now.


Frankly, the damage that Saddam is inflicting on his population is less than that which would be inflicted by the West in kicking him out. And do you think we would be loved for doing so?

In a short-term outlook (1-5 years) this may be true. But in a long-term outlook (5 years plus) this outlook is far less certain. No one will claim to love the US as long as they are indoctrinated to hate it. Though when such indoctrination ceases and moderates and progressives are at the helm and proliferate throughout the region - there is hope that they will love us, much the same way as the Germans and Japanese went through their "everything US is great" stages during the seventies and eighties.


If you want another Palestine on your conscience, then by all means attack again. If you want some degree of justice, and a hope for peace one day, then you have to accept the rule of international law.

Justice is one of those relative terms. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and situation complicates the matters, and Bush mentioned in his UN speech that he wants to see a Palestinian state emerge.

International law is swell and fine - but the international community is not yet dealing with a nuclear armed dictator, whose mentality is that of a psychopath, who literally enjoys watching people tortured. We defend every fledgling democracy, we protect the worlds oil interests. We clean up unfinished messes and pay exorbitant sums in aid to multitudes of nations. We have also witnessed terrorist attacks on the WTC in 1993 and again in 2001.

Saddam attempted to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 while he was visiting Kuwait. This was the "gratitude" he showed for letting his regime remain in power. At that moment he lost his right to a legitimate government and not expect the US to remove him from power.


And when you've started on that path, you also need to face up to the Israel/Palestine mess, the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto, all on a basis of parity and evenhandedness.



Playing the schoolyard bully isn't going to solve your problems, even if you start off by being right sometimes.



Bully is the wrong term. A bully may be bigger and tougher than the small kids - but so is the schools recess-monitor. The US is the recess-monitor - the one who keeps bullies like Saddam from beating up the other kids. Saddam even has taken a swung at his teacher. Now he has shown he wants to bring a gun on campus -and he is going to be expelled.

My 25 cents,

SDAI-Tech1