thanks Jimi I was obviously confused.

I have just watched an interview with someone who's name I didn't catch but who was a spokesperson for the humanitarian side who was being asked about the US/coalition stated aim of having the wealth of the Iraqi oilfields used for the rebuilding of Iraq etc.

He pointed out that Iraq is already in debt to the international community to the tune of $130 billion and is still under compensatory debt of $44 billion for the last Gulf War, both debts the US has already said will be paid off as soon as they are in control of the oil revenue.

Fair enough. However he then went on to say that the US govt is illegally (?) demanding all Iraqi money that is held in banks around the world and that this money is part of what has already been earmarked for the contracted US corporations to rebuild and clean up Iraq.

I hadn't heard that last part. I'll put up a link when it becomes available, the program puts its transcripts up on the website a few hours after the show goes to air.

Any withdrawal Saddam will see as a victory. That's all there is to it. Hell, he managed to spin GW I as a victory to his people!

There. Despite my loathing for this war, that's my sticking point, right there, I guess.

moonlit ... no, those would be the missles that apparently everyone but the US, saw being destroyed right before Fuckface Dubya launched his attack.

Which ones are hitting Kuwait?

Which ones are hitting Kuwait?

Probably the half-dozen they didn't get time to dismantle.

Scott Hope is gay and now on Queer as Folk !!

Oh, that's where I've seen that guy before. Obnoxious violinist (aren't they all), right?

That's the one.

ar, really, you're so very reasonable and logical that you've fallen into the trap of believing everybody thinks like you do!

Interesting; so I've gone from being "smug and stupid" to excessively "reasonable and logical". I don't ask that you change your mind on anything; obviously you hold your opinions because you believe they are right. Can you do the same to others? Can you just assume they are wrong, without speculating on what personality flaw leads to that particular error? People come to a wrong conclusions in all aspects of life; sometimes these do not arise from any particular aspect of their character, but simply from making a mistake.

And Cindy, Saddam may have claimed Gulf War I as a victory. (Actually it was about Gulf War III for him; it was simply the first in which the U.S. was not an ally.) No one in Iraq believed him; they supported him for the same reason Russians in the old Soviet Union supported Stalin in WWII - they were under attack from a deadly enemy. "Sanctions" are too mild a word for what we imposed; Iraq was under siege; in spite of allowing food in, basic neccesiities of life were denied, supported by bombings which kept them from being rebuilt. If we withdrew now, there would some rallying to Saddam. There is a natural tendency to rally to your leader in the case of an attack. But is is also short term; it ends when the emergency ends, and Saddam is deeply, deeply hated. Some of things he is doing in Basra are not making him more deeply loved. Don't just end the invasion; end the siege warfare, and he won't last.

Guarantees - none. But we have no guarantees once we become an occupying army either. My strategic judgement is that risks of peace, even now, are better than the risks of war. And I can't help but feel that fighting a war, without overwhelming evidence that continuing it will lead to better results than stopping it, is still wrong.

There is a natural tendency to rally to your leader in the case of an attack. But is is also short term; it ends when the emergency ends, and Saddam is deeply, deeply hated. Some of things he is doing in Basra are not making him more deeply loved. Don't just end the invasion; end the siege warfare, and he won't last.

This, I want to believe. How, though? If his various special military and police forces aren't taken out, if he's not removed from office, how does that happen? This isn't an argument; I really don't understand. It's not that I envision the Iraqi people rallying to him out of love. I understand the rallying would be motivated by fear of him. So what ends that? If he's left in power with his forces in tact, what puts an end to their fear. Wouldn't the fear be increased if the (arguably) most mighty military force in the world "couldn't" (didn't) take him out? Wouldn't the Iraqi people be more full of despair than ever? And if we did just drop out, and they did manage his fall, who would they "they" be? Would it be a now well fed religious extremist group? Is that better? Or would it be Afghanistan all over again?

Guarantees - none. But we have no guarantees once we become an occupying army either.

Agreed.

My strategic judgement is that risks of peace, even now, are better than the risks of war.

Before it started, I would have agreed with this. Since it's started, this is probably our biggest difference. Although, I think peace is more worth risk, than is war.

And I can't help but feel that fighting a war, without overwhelming evidence that continuing it will lead to better results than stopping it, is still wrong.

Well, since we know it won't stop, (unless/until things go completely, horribly wrong for the coalition), I just hope it's over quickly.

If his various special military and police forces aren't taken out, if he's not removed from office, how does that happen? This isn't an argument; I really don't understand. It's not that I envision the Iraqi people rallying to him out of love. I understand the rallying would be motivated by fear of him. So what ends that? If he's left in power with his forces in tact, what puts an end to their fear.

Here is what I tried, but obviously failed, to make clear. My argument is that Saddam has been kept in power solely through fear of him and his forces. A lot of other dictators in similar circumstances have been overthrown. My contention is that he was kept in power in part through fear of the U.S. during the long siege. People rallied to him, not just now during the invasion, but during the twelve previous years of siege warfare. End the siege, and after the short term boost wears often you only have the fear of him. You no longer have the people rallying to him to support their leader when their country is under attack.

In short my argument is that the sanctions actually kept him in power; without them he would have gone the way of any other dictator who loses two wars in a row. And if we withdraw now, he has the cachet of having actually won a war; but he has been hated for long enough and lost enough previous ones recently that I don't think it would last long.

You still may not agree; but I hope the point is at least clear now.

I think what sanctions have done to the Iraqi people are horrific. I guess I just didn't equate it with siege.

And as to who they would be; the fundamentalist in Iraq are basically a small state supported group - thus without tons of legitamacy. If you had contact with the outside world, a secular opposition would gradually arise from the large secular middle class that still exists there (even if they are no longer economically a middle class).

Or perhaps not; as I said no guarantees. But who are we going to put in charge when we get bored in a year or two? Or are we going to stay as a permanent occupation?

Risks either way.

And I agree that even though we should stop, given that we are not going to stop, both the U.S. and the Iraq people will be better off if the U.S. wins quickly rather than slowly, because more people will die on both sides if we win slowly, and the bad outcomes that follow will be the same. But that does not make it right; I still think that the right thing for the U.S. to do - better than winning either quickly or slowly - is to admit that we were wrong, and withdraw. Winning quickly is just the better way to do the evil and foolish thing we are doing than winning slowly.