Resistance to the French threat mounting!

[DuncanK]

There is the possibility that Saddam's weapons (and I don't call them WoMD anymore) are in Suddan, or somewhere else. In that case he is screwed.

[GePap]

The Guardian article is not nonsense; to begin:

1. Is is correct to say one can't draw 1-1 lessons form history. It would also be a rather short article if that is what everyoine else said.
2. Their reasoning of why 1938 has nothing to do with this is very clear and correct. The threat Hitler possed to his region, and the threat Saddam posses to his won (forget Europe) are nowhere near similar. In 1938 Most of Germany's neighboring powers were somehow alone (the USSR was isolated form everyone else, Italy gravitating towards Germany, and France and the UK without any coming US support, Soviet support, Italian support, and with the memories of WW1 fresh) and Germany was hte strongest militarily of all of them. Israel, SA, Kuwait and the Gulf states can count ont he US to defend them as does Turkey. Syria and Iran, with no regional friends, are strong enough to take on the much weakened Saddam, and Saddam is not getting stronger. Saddam may want to dominate the ME, but he has neither the capanility, or really, the time to get it.

That Iraq is not disarming is besides the point: I agree he isn't, but the question is, is that enough for war, and my answer to that is no. Those that advoctae this war ussually want to gut the UN, so their "doing it for the UN" reason is at best, utterly hypocritical. Saddam can be contained.

Now, on the "liberating Iraq" issue: This is, in theoyr, just fine. CT is wrong, I am sure the vast majority of the Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam. at the same time, I have seen no planning, or even statements coming out of this admin. that shows they are putting together a worthwhile plan for the transition. Their dealings with the Iraqi opposition, basically shoving them to the side to appease local powers (The Kurds for Turkey, the Shia's for SA) does not bode well for how the US will set up civl administration, and in the end, that is where this whole thing could gpo terribly wrong. The war does not matter much, the US will win without question (just another reason why this is so different from 1938. No one here can say that if the UK and France had declared war on germany in 1938, they would have won without question, given the status of the USSR and the US, Italy), but whether the US wins the pease, that is totally up in the air, and given the previous acts of this admin. and how far they go with fulfilling their promises, well, that's not a good sign.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Comrade, bring facts not propaganda to discussion and we'll talk.

Negative Growth Rate is not Negative GNP. With a high GNP, you can have negative Growth Rate and still be comfortable. What matters is actual per capita living standard.

Wish people thoughteth before they posteth.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The questions that follow are:

1) are we only dealing with the security of europe? should we disregard the peace in quwait, iran, jordan, israel?

Siro, you are an intelligent guy, but *stop the disinfo*, will you?

Iran, Jordan and even Kuwait *have said* they *do not feel threatened*.

So the question comes down to: *Why is the safety of Israel our business?*

(Btw, you are in strong disagreement with Chegitz: he thinks I have fallen victim of neo-nazi propaganda by believing Israel has something to do with it! Can´t you two fight it out among yourselves? )

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And please, do not assimilate Comrade Tribune to the left-wingers or the Europeans.

You confuse 'assimilate' with 'confuse'.

And I am where European left-wingers should be. If they aren´t, so much the worse for European left-wingers.

[Spiffor]

"You confuse 'assimilate' with 'confuse'."
right

"And I am where European left-wingers should be."
Wrong

[Vanguard]

Nobody likes Saddam. In 1991, the UN was clearly in the right to prevent the invasion and annexation of a member state, even one of such doubtful legitimacy as Kuwait. The UN and the US-led coalition deserve great credit for acting then and for keeping casualties to a (relative) minimum.

But I agree with GePap that there is no lesson of history to be drawn here. In terms of the threat he poses to regional security, Saddam is not Hitler. He isn't even close to Hitler.

But even if he was, Iraq hasn't done anything to merit invasion. Saddam may indeed be trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He may be violating certain terms of the cease fire. But we now have inspectors on the ground in Iraq who can go basically anywhere they want at any time. If he has weapons of mass destruction, then we can eventually find them. In any case we can certainly ensure that Saddam is not in a position to deploy them.

We don't need to invade to enforce the terms of the cease-fire. We just want to. Specifically George Bush wants to. That's not good enough. This is a UN action and the UN must authorize any enforcement proceding on the magnitude of an invasion with the intention of forcing a regime change.

The UN can authorize such an action if it wants to. There are, in this case, sufficient grounds. But France, Russia and China are completely within their rights in insisting that their vetoes be respected. They are members of the Security Council. They do have vetoes. The US cannot willy nilly decide to take unilateral action in the name of the United Nations. If it does, then it will be violating the UN Charter and acting against its own interests.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Lancer

France has 30 billion in trade with the US. Well, kiss much of that goodbye, more as the boycotts become more organized. Even my wacko leftist brother hates France. My co-workers speak of their dislike of the French...it's a part of the fabric of American society now.

All because of your love of a two bit murdering dictator...

Why should anyone listen to someone who's decided to become an intolerant racist? I doubt if you've ever even met a French person

If you don't like what the French do, hate their government, but not their people. You don't realise the cannon fodder you're giving everyone to hate americans because of thier abrasive personalities. That said, the French government are certainly pretending to be saintly while in reality are simply defending their grubby form of economic imperialism. The have a number of fingers in the Iraqi pie, so their defence of peace is in no way for noble reasons.

Of course, the Germans and Russians have interests there too, although they're more like shaking hands with Saddam as opposed to the French swapping of bodily fluids with him

[Lancer]

"Racist"

I'm white, French people are white...

Nice try Lung, but wierd.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Racist"

I'm white, French people are white...

Nice try Lung, but wierd.

Racism is just a certain type of prejudice. Okay, so you're prejudiced, then In any case, prejudice is just as bad as racism because hating someone on the basis of their race is not inherently worse than prejudice for any other reason. Intolerance of people based on other than their individual attributes and consequent discrimination is simply wrong. You've blatantly stated your hate of people based purely on their nationality.

Just because people hate Americans because you're american, doesn't mean that you have to do it. If it makes you feel better, i acknowledge that certain Apolytoners who claim the moral high ground are guilty of exactly that.

I just think that your stance doesn't do you or your countrymen any favours by adding to their prejudice against Americans.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Negative Growth Rate is not Negative GNP. With a high GNP, you can have negative Growth Rate and still be comfortable. What matters is actual per capita living standard.

Wish people thoughteth before they posteth.

Apologies on the semantics.

Let's look at the fact: $35,000,000,000/24,000,000(population-approx) = $1458.33
$1458.33 per capita GNP. This is not up to European standards.

Let's compare this with the neighborhood:

Syria : $3,200 per capita
Iran : $6,400 per capita
Kuwait: $15,100 per capita
Saudi: $10,600 per capita
Jordan: $4,200 per capita
Turkey: $6,700 per capita

These are all 2001 estimates, so lets be fair...

Iraq (2001 est.): $2,500


Now Let's look at a couple of European countries:

Austria: $27,000 per capita
France: $25,400 per capita
Germany:$26,200 per capita

How about Eastern Europe:

Czech Republic: $14,400 per capita
Poland: $8,800 per capita
Hungary: $12,000 per capita

Your argument has no merit whatsoever. Iraqi GNP has been dismal from the time Saddam came into power and growth has been less than stagnant since. To state, in any form, that the Iraqi economy has benefitted from dictatorial rule is to show an incredible ignorance of the facts.

You state that what matters is per capita living standard. On that we may agree. You have made my argument for me.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Apologies on the semantics.

Let's look at the fact: $35,000,000,000/24,000,000(population-approx) = $1458.33
$1458.33 per capita GNP. This is not up to European standards.

Let's compare this with the neighborhood:

Syria : $3,200 per capita
Iran : $6,400 per capita
Kuwait: $15,100 per capita
Saudi: $10,600 per capita
Jordan: $4,200 per capita
Turkey: $6,700 per capita

These are all 2001 estimates, so lets be fair...

Iraq (2001 est.): $2,500


Now Let's look at a couple of European countries:

Austria: $27,000 per capita
France: $25,400 per capita
Germany:$26,200 per capita

How about Eastern Europe:

Czech Republic: $14,400 per capita
Poland: $8,800 per capita
Hungary: $12,000 per capita

Your argument has no merit whatsoever. Iraqi GNP has been dismal from the time Saddam came into power and growth has been less than stagnant since. To state, in any form, that the Iraqi economy has benefitted from dictatorial rule is to show an incredible ignorance of the facts.

You state that what matters is per capita living standard. On that we may agree. You have made my argument for me.

No, I haven´t.

First of all, you should have compared ca.1980 numbers, not 2001. I was clearly saying: *Before the war with Iran*, so if you don´t bother to understand my post, there is nothing I can do.

Also, you have to compare GNP per capita with the actual prices of consumer goods at the time and in that country. In a developing country you have low wages, but also low prices, so, yes, you need a price index as well to arrive at meaningful conclusions. So, yes, you 'got' me on that I should have explicitly said so. I thought that was understood.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
until the (US-incited) war against Iran.

Ok. I'll bite. How was the Iran-Iraq War incited by the US as oppossed to Iran?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Ok. I'll bite. How was the Iran-Iraq War incited by the US as oppossed to Iran?

1 We are already way off-topic.
2 I am glad you do not contest the fact that Iraq *had* a high living standard before the wars.
3 I am too lazy to go and search for a link again. You *know*, just as well as I do, that the US gave Saddam the go-ahead, weapons and every kind of incentive possible to attack the then-number-one-'threat' Iran.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
1 We are already way off-topic.

So what.

2 I am glad you do not contest the fact that Iraq *had* a high living standard before the wars.

I don't care enough to even look up the information. I'll leave it to others to accept or reject the assertion.

You *know*, just as well as I do, that the US gave Saddam the go-ahead, weapons and every kind of incentive possible to attack the then-number-one-'threat' Iran.

How does that disprove the commonly accepted fact that Iran started the war?