Rick Has A Word or two for sceptics.

[MSimon]

But let's just consider the 'head' count for a moment. How many people would Saddam have killed and surpressed if he had been let on in power, compared with how many have been killed and surpressed by the action to date.

Up 'til mid 2008 it was probably a wash. Since then it is in plus territory - for the Iraqis. Can they keep it that way? Time will tell.

[ladajo]

Fair enough. There was a lot of strategic deceptino going on by all parties involved. I was also out there in 03 for kick off, and the timing was dependant on many variables. Not the least of which was how long can you afford to keep a massive air sea and land force on the line.
At the end of the day, Saddam did have Chem and foundations for Bio. The Nuclear was shelved but not forgotten for a better day. He put a lot of effort into convincing Iran that he had more than he did and that in turn spilled over into western intel. Add a healthy dose of intelligence circular reporting, and underlying desire to get rid of an a-hole that on many levels needed to go away, and viola! one massive Tomahawk Wave coming right up.
The other key piece we failed to appreciate is just how much the peninsula dwellars view life as a "business"(used in a large loose context) struggle between tribal famliy groups. Ooops. We are still paying for that one.
I had the luck to spend the opening of the war as a lone american on an all European Staff, which included the French and Germans. I held my ground on the position that Saddam was an A** that needed to go (just ask the dead israelis who were taken out by the Hamas/Saddam-o-fund $Free for a Marter's Family program. WMD really had no bearing in the bigger picture. What was interesting to me was all my military counterparts were essentially opposite of what their respective governments were pushing in the media. Funny days it was. Not so funny for the other end of the kinetic equation, but ironic on my end none the less.
Now if we can just clear out a couple more A**holes around the globe, things might quiet down a bit and we can get some civilization enhancing research and testing done.

[MSimon]

There was no embargo on medicine or food. The money went to palaces and arms. You might want to look up: Oil for Food Maurice Strong and get an education. Who knows. You might learn something about some of the Queen's subjects. And friends of the UN.

eh??? The UN itself imposed the embargo, from 1990. The oil for food thing didn't kick off unitl '97. It was someone from the UN that I heard give an interview in the mid 90's stating that though he'd been responsible for it in the first instance, but he resigned because of the terrible damage he was seeing it was doing and wanted to close it down. Can't remember the guy's name, but I'll look it up, if you like. D'you want me to look up the UN resolution aswell??

Dood. I said look it up. Kofi and Maurice were in cahoots with Saddam to take food out of the mouths of children and line their pockets.

War put an end to that.

Here is a little something for you:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover120905.htm

[chrismb]

Here is a little something for you:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover120905.htm

This was all way-after the initial embargo that cleared the Iraqi medical stocks [for the general public].

[scareduck]

Remember, the reason we're all here is to find a path to cheap energy. There's plenty of paths to expensive energy. We don't care about them, for a good reason.

Expensive paths to cheap energy?

Example: sunlight is free and universally available. If the capital costs of installing solar to cover some sufficiently large area for a required energy level is too high, it's pointless to pursue solar energy; more, it's a first-level indicator that the energy return may be negative. Most of solar's proponents demand not only capital subsidy (in California, state-sponsored rebates for installation) but operational subsidy (again in CA, utilities are required to buy back surplus energy at the retail cost of electricity). Both are indicators that something fishy is going on.

[KitemanSA]

Remember, the reason we're all here is to find a path to cheap energy. There's plenty of paths to expensive energy. We don't care about them, for a good reason.

Expensive paths to cheap energy?

Example: sunlight is free and universally available. If the capital costs of installing solar to cover some sufficiently large area for a required energy level is too high, it's pointless to pursue solar energy;....

I may be misreading him, but I think Betruger's "Expensive paths to cheap energy" referred to things like Tokamak. Do you think it appropriate to pursue expensive paths to cheap energy?

[scareduck]

Expensive paths to cheap energy?

Example: sunlight is free and universally available. If the capital costs of installing solar to cover some sufficiently large area for a required energy level is too high, it's pointless to pursue solar energy;....

I may be misreading him, but I think Betruger's "Expensive paths to cheap energy" referred to things like Tokamak. Do you think it appropriate to pursue expensive paths to cheap energy?

Well, no.

[Betruger]

Example: sunlight is free and universally available. If the capital costs of installing solar to cover some sufficiently large area for a required energy level is too high, it's pointless to pursue solar energy;....

I may be misreading him, but I think Betruger's "Expensive paths to cheap energy" referred to things like Tokamak. Do you think it appropriate to pursue expensive paths to cheap energy?

Well, no.

It's an economics question at that point. From a scientific/engineering POV, IMHO it's definitely worth it: "Free (or nearly) energy"! You are given the chance to blaze this trail, why would you pass up on such an opportunity? At the very worst you enable the denial of wasteful funds pursuind this dead-end == more deserving/promising paths to more efficient energy paradigms.
If I were Dr Nebel, even a long shot at pB11 would be worth it. Because it is imperative to not pass up on any such possible boon to humanity's (and consequently my own) wealth. Both for my own pride and duty, and for altruistic reasons.

"No show stoppers"

[bcglorf]

Find a word of support in my piece for Saddam. I mentioned a) the 100,000s of children who needlessly suffered for a pointless US lead embargo on medical aid

Seems to me that blaming the US for the suffering in Iraq when sanctions were being enforced shows support for Saddam. You do realize of course that it was his dogged persistence to develop WMD programs and refusal to allow inspections that caused the sanctions to be necessary. It was also his insistence on continuing to build more elaborate palaces while the sanctions were in place that caused the majority of the suffering. -sarcasm- But yes, let's blame the Americans for the plight of the Iraqi people living under Saddam's rule, and then we'll also blame them for the plight of the Iraqi people after they remove Saddam. Let's just blame them for anything and everything that ever has and ever will happen to the Iraqi people. How could that possibly be viewed as support for Saddam?-sarcasm-

But let's just consider the 'head' count for a moment. How many people would Saddam have killed and surpressed if he had been let on in power, compared with how many have been killed and surpressed by the action to date. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that the latter are the lower figures.

Let's please do that. What's the best estimate of people that've been killed since the invasion? 2-300 thousand is about the middle ground, with numbers as low as 100k and as high as 600k given depending on if you figure old age deaths should also be laid at the American invasions feet. Saddam killed an estimated 300k Kurds in just a single campaign against them, that does NOT include his infamous use of chemical weapons against their villages either. In his Al-Anfal campaign he destroyed 90% of all Kurdish villages, and placed every last Kurd he could into concentration camps. The women, children and elderly were kept there under unimaginably horrific conditions. So severe in fact that nearly every last child under the age of 5 died there. Everyone was rountinely beaten. The women were systematically raped, not to punish or demoralize them, nor even for the guards amusement, but in order to get them pregnant with half-arab children and breed the Kurdish people out of existence. The men were more quickly removed from the camps, as quickly as the mass graves could be dug. They were then trucked out to them, executed, and buried by bulldozer. In all, Saddam directly and intentionaly killed as many as 300,000 Kurds this way in a few short years. He'd have done it again after the first Gulf war too if the Americans hadn't maintained an illegal no-fly zone over Northern Iraq. By no means make the mistake of thinking that Saddam reserved that cruelty for the Kurds, he used that against anyone and everyone even suspected of lacking loyalty to him. On taking control of the Baath party he executed 60 of it's leadership, chosen at random, just to ensure his absolute authority. Do you really want to compare that kind of body count to the deaths in the American invasion, where most of the deaths have resulted from the horrific sectarian hatred that had been forming from Saddam's years of oppression? I should truly hope you come to the right conclusion on viewing that.

"This is my point; the waging of war is not in the interests of the civilian populations."

Tell that to the civilian populations of 1940's Europe, you can bet most of them were wishing they would have fought a war in the 30's instead of waiting by peacably for the Nazi soldiers to come.

[chrismb]

that caused the sanctions to be necessary. It was also his insistence on continuing to build more elaborate palaces while the sanctions were in place that caused the majority of the suffering.

Even this comment is entirely self-excluding - how can something be *necessary* whilst Saddam could still carry on doing whatever he wanted anyway. Since when has an embargo on birthing aids been necessary to prevent the development of WMD!!! My objection was clearly stated; *pointless* embargos.

Your whole piece is a study in non-sequitur arguments. It's a bit like me saying; you were against Saddam, he was an Arab, therefore you're against Arabs and you're American therefore all Americans want to nuke Tehran. It is that kind of logic that many in the Arab world actually believe and why they hate America, so if you don't like it then don't do it to others. Don't perpetuate that kind of belligerent attitude. I side with no-one in a debate or an argument. As agent provocateur I'm not even on the side of my own arguments much of the time (!!), so how the heck I can be attributed to favour one side or another in a totally unrelated matter to my own concerns is ridiculous.

Maybe you do want to nuke Tehran, but if I say that this isn't exactly an appropirate way forward hardly demonstrates I'm siding with Saddam!!

[bcglorf]

Even this comment is entirely self-excluding - how can something be *necessary* whilst Saddam could still carry on doing whatever he wanted anyway. Since when has an embargo on birthing aids been necessary to prevent the development of WMD!!! My objection was clearly stated; *pointless* embargos.


Trade sanctions and embargoes, or war in some form, take your pick. You seemed to be adamant that war was the wrong road. Unless you figured the right road for dealing with Saddam was to simply do nothing, trade embargoes are one of the few middle roads available to apply pressure towards changes.

Your whole piece is a study in non-sequitur arguments

I hadn't realized when discussing the Iraq war that Saddam's history of genocide and gross human rights abuses was a non sequitur. I think that is where our opinions differ, and I do believe it amounts to surrendering the moral high ground.


you were against Saddam, he was an Arab, therefore you're against Arabs and you're American therefore all Americans want to nuke Tehran...Maybe you do want to nuke Tehran, but if I say that this isn't exactly an appropirate way forward hardly demonstrates I'm siding with Saddam!

I'm hoping you are just trying to demonstrate a non-sequitor and actually do realize that Tehran is of course in Iran not Iraq. If not, thank you for disqualifying your opinion. If so, I think it's beyond reprehensible to argue that Saddam's prior genocides and war crimes are irrelevant in judging the war to remove him. Neither explanation makes your argument palatable.

As agent provocateur I'm not even on the side of my own arguments much of the time
Freeing yourself from personal responsibility for your arguments doesn't make the arguments you put forward any less false and open to reproach. For expediency feel free to substitute any place I slip and refer to 'you' with 'people following your argument'.

[pfrit]

Your whole piece is a study in non-sequitur arguments. It's a bit like me saying; you were against Saddam, he was an Arab, therefore you're against Arabs and you're American therefore all Americans want to nuke Tehran.

Iran is not an arabic state. The people there are indo-european(Persian). If you are going to take an argument to its logical extreme, please use correct facts.

[chrismb]

Trade sanctions and embargoes, or war in some form, take your pick. You seemed to be adamant that war was the wrong road.

War at that instant was not called for and was tactically in error.

Unless you figured the right road for dealing with Saddam was to simply do nothing, trade embargoes are one of the few middle roads available to apply pressure towards changes.

Someone could've tried talking to him. Many did, and had useful outcomes. In fact, as far as I understood the situation, there were far more worrysome elements in Iraq that Saddam was actually sitting on [in his old age] and that, obviously, are therefore still there. There is no question Saddam was a murderous b***d. Was this action for the better? Don't know, but if you think it was done for the betterment of the Iraqi people, then why doesn't America do something useful and do the same in half the African countries where life is much more dire for people under their governments than it was for the Iraqis under Saddam. Its about oil, and the more you twiddle on about how dreadful Saddam was to his people as the justification for the war, the more your discussion can be seen to be mislead.

I hadn't realized when discussing the Iraq war that Saddam's history of genocide and gross human rights abuses was a non sequitur.

(D'you know what that means? How can such events be, in themselves, 'non-sequitur??)

I think that is where our opinions differ, and I do believe it amounts to surrendering the moral high ground.

I'm happy to presume I am on the high ground, because I'm not suggesting there is any benefit killing people there. If you're killing someone, then it's not the high ground of morality that you're standing on.

I'm hoping you are just trying to demonstrate a non-sequitor and actually do realize that Tehran is of course in Iran not Iraq.

Of course. I'm showing the daftness of the non-sequitur debating style you've adopted.

If so, I think it's beyond reprehensible to argue that Saddam's prior genocides and war crimes are irrelevant in judging the war to remove him.

Really!? How on earth is it irrelevant when the US didn't have the balls to say out right that the war was to remove Saddam? Probably because it would've been illegal to have acted in that purpose. "Pre-emptive defence"! Hah! What techno-bello-babble! So if you have two peaceable sides and both look at each other thinking 'do I need to take pre-emptive defence' then of course the answer self-results as a yes! War for war's sake.

How would that at all be different if the USSR had said that they wanted regime change in the West because of the oppression of the working man by the upper classes? I can damned-well attest to that right now - I can't afford to buy clothes and bankers whom I've just helped out with my tax money are going to pay themselves 6 billion in bonuses. Geddoudahere!! Whose set of values are superior here? If Saddam hadn't been the 'strong man' doing his bloody business, how many people would've died then? If there is no viability in permitting the innocent to die for a longer term benefit then no war could have been waged on such moral terms, as the innocent always die. It seems to me the Americans feel Ok with themselves so long as they don't think it through and face up to the reality of their actions and that they can then condemn those who knowingly kill off the distruptive elements of society who might lead to an ever greater level of innocent bloodshed.

This "we are where we are" argument is intellectually contemptible. Sure, America, go rush yourself into a situation over which you haven't got the slightest idea how to make a plan after the event! Well done! Brilliant! It's like an instant gratification culture played out on the world stage, with innocent lives as the payment.

This is not an argument for or against anyone, this is an argument to maintain moral consistency and to make honest declarations over intent.

Freeing yourself from personal responsibility for your arguments doesn't make the arguments you put forward any less false and open to reproach.

Well, you seem to have made it an art to dodge specific issues. Let's just focus on one [that kicked this off]; how does an embargo on birthing aids help avoid the development of WMD? Just answer the straight question, than telling me my arguments are false whilst answering completely different questions.

[chrismb]

Your whole piece is a study in non-sequitur arguments. It's a bit like me saying; you were against Saddam, he was an Arab, therefore you're against Arabs and you're American therefore all Americans want to nuke Tehran.

Iran is not an arabic state. The people there are indo-european(Persian). If you are going to take an argument to its logical extreme, please use correct facts.

I was trying to ridicule the kind of thinking that such silly arguments perpetuate. There is nothing logical about no-sequitur arguments, that's my point.

[pfrit]

Your whole piece is a study in non-sequitur arguments. It's a bit like me saying; you were against Saddam, he was an Arab, therefore you're against Arabs and you're American therefore all Americans want to nuke Tehran.

Iran is not an arabic state. The people there are indo-european(Persian). If you are going to take an argument to its logical extreme, please use correct facts.

I was trying to ridicule the kind of thinking that such silly arguments perpetuate. There is nothing logical about no-sequitur arguments, that's my point.

You could have replaced Arab with Islam and been factually correct, though whether Saddam was islamic is a debatable matter. If you wanted to ridicule the logic you could have said "You like chocolate, you are american, thus americans want to nuke Tehran" which would have been at least funny...