Do you think this cartoon is correct?

[Drake Tungsten]

As bad as Saudi Arabia is, Iraq is a thousand times worse.

[Maniac]

Yeah right. In the 80's Iraq was an ally of America. Then suddenly they changed from supergood to superbad. Gimme a break. Iraq could still be a potential business partner, if you just gave up those attempts to demonize them and treat them like you do to other useful dictatorships.

[Drake Tungsten]

We're demonizing a dictator that has invaded several of his neighbors, is trying to build nukes, and has gassed his own people!?!

How dense are you?

[Maniac]

You were demonizing Afghanistan and the Taliban for their strict application of the Islam laws. Nothing of that with Arabia. With the Taliban gone they're the most strict Islam country.

How dense are you?

[chequita guevara]

Having nukes doesn't stop people from attacking you. Israel has had nukes since the early 60s, and was attacked in 1973. India developed it's first nuke in 1973, and went to war with Pakistan the following year. Numerous nuclear armed powers have gotten into wars and not used them.

I don't believe that the fact that Pakistan and India both have nukes had as much to do with them not going to war as India's overwhelming military advantage gave Pakistan a reason to come to terms. The fact that the US was using Pakistan as a base for its operations in Afganistan also gave the Indians some pause. The fact that both countries had nukes made everyone else nervous, and gave the world an incentive to put pressure on both countries not to go to war.

Having a nuke (an extremely dubious prospect in re: Iraq) is meaningless if other countries refused to be cowed by it. Even if he did, exactly how powerful a weapon would it be? How many would he have? And how would he be able to use it?

[Maniac]

Chegitz

[Drake Tungsten]

Having nukes doesn't stop people from attacking you. Israel has had nukes since the early 60s, and was attacked in 1973. India developed it's first nuke in 1973, and went to war with Pakistan the following year. Numerous nuclear armed powers have gotten into wars and not used them.

I specifically said that it decreases conflict between nuclear armed powers. In conflicts between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power there isn't much chance of nukes being used. Sure, Israel could've turned Cairo and Damascus into glass, but why? The international condemnation would be unimaginable. Same thing with India. Why nuke a country that can't defend itself? The only way I could see it happening is if a nuclear armed nation was on the verge of collapse when facing a non-nuclear foe.

The fact that both countries had nukes made everyone else nervous, and gave the world an incentive to put pressure on both countries not to go to war.

That was exactly my point. If India and Pakistan had not been nuclear powers, the situation might have spiraled out of control while the international community ignored it. Nukes change the situation completely.

Having a nuke (an extremely dubious prospect in re: Iraq) is meaningless if other countries refused to be cowed by it. Even if he did, exactly how powerful a weapon would it be? How many would he have? And how would he be able to use it?

A single Scud tipped with a nuclear warhead would be enough to kill thousands of US troops attempting to fight a conventional war against Iraq. Do you think the US wouldn't be cowed by the potential for those type of casualties?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
A single Scud tipped with a nuclear warhead would be enough to kill thousands of US troops attempting to fight a conventional war against Iraq. Do you think the US wouldn't be cowed by the potential for those type of casualties?

If it could hit. SCUDs have no serious guidance system. They are point and fire weapons, and you hope it runs out of fuel at the right time and hits the target. How many SCUDs were fired during the Gulf War? How many actually hit their target? Plus, where are the Iraqis going to get a SCUD?

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you really have to be that accurate with a nuclear weapon?

And Iraq still has mobile Scud launchers. Everyone seems to know this except for you...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, the man is right. Nukes drastically reduce warfare betwene two nuclear powers. It is refered to as the 'Balance of Terror'.

[Gatekeeper]

Maniac:

If the United States is hypocritical, then so is Europe.

BTW, has anyone noticed how the debate on Iraq (in general) seems to have moved from whether or not Iraq has WMD to, yes, they probably do have them, but is it still reason enough to attack them?

Gatekeeper

[Tingkai]

What I find funny is the unintended idea that the United States is controlled by its allies. The cartoon says the US can't do anything unless it is allowed to by its allies. Kind of insulting to the US, eh.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Europe already has lucrative oil deals with Iraq. US is screwing it up.

We already know about the under the table deals between France and Iraq. There's no need to broadcast it further.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Maniac
That's in all dictatorships. The same with your good allies Arabia.

The Saudis certainly aren't our friends; they are business associates. They have oil but are militarially incompetent. We have a great military but would like some of their oil. What's more is that as long as the cheap oil keeps flowing we'll even agree not to have them overthrown like the two bit dictators they are. Is that a good deal or what?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Maniac
The USA however are hypocrites. They support Arabia, but they accuse Iraq of not being democratic enough.

I have heard bush come up with some flimsey excuses but never once has he said anything about democracy. No, it usually boils down to not wanting a dictator who has invaded two of its neighbors (Iran & Kuwait) and who has gased his own people to have a nuclear arsonal. The belief is he will use them as black mail against other countries in the region or, since they have already supported terrorism & attempted to assinate Bush Senior in the past, they may use these nukes as part of a terrorism attack. The average nuke can fit easily into the trunk of a car. Just drive it into a city of your choice, leave, then...BOOM.

It would be damn near impossible to figure out who sponsored the attack to so the Iraqis might even win in the court of international opinion by simply denying everything (a la OBL).