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 ****load 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.

[Dinner]

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.

[Dinner]

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.