Many of the palaces have gold-plated plumbing and large fountains.

Any kind of plumbing would do for the children, for whom clean water would solve half their problems.

Sorry dave, I didn't mean to be putting words into your mouth. It seems we are generally of the same opinion.

UT, on the other hand... :)

Iraq, surprisingly, is one of the most modern countries in the Middle East. It has a thriving, educated middle class that is far removed from the poor, urban class you probably picture. The issue is not whether or not plumbing would help children, but whether or not those children can actually get some medical attention. I can guarantee you that gold-plated pipes aren't on the sanctions list.

I'd read that about 50% of the population would be considered impoverished, which would be 90% if not for the oil-for-food program.

I'd read that dysentery was a major problem and that clean water and sanitation were not available.

But perhaps what I read was merely UN propaganda.

I think that's part of the problem. Our media wants everyone to see Iraq as this terrible country where people are living in fear every night and barely have enough food. When in reality no one really knows. We have no reports coming out of Iraq that are first person knowlege, everything is either directly from Baghdad or from the UN.

Most of the UN stuff is pretty grim, i'm sure the situation on teh ground outside the cities is. From the stuff i've seen coming rom there now - as in recent reports, it doesn't seem all that bad, at least in the cities. But exactly how free the journos are to take shots, who knows. One thing you can bank on is that they might not love Saddam but they sure as hell don't like hte US either.

Yep, that's pretty much it. I'd say his "beef" with us is much stronger than the other countries you list.

You say "even though Hussein has made no attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil", as though the fact that he hasn't tried is good enough reason not to attack. So, in your eyes, does he have to make such an attempt before war is justifiable?

Look at the docs, look at the analysis, its not in his national interest to attack the US.

Ashleigh Banfield was doing her show from Iraq a few weeks before 9/11. They seemed to give her pretty open access, although some government official had to be with her and the crew any time a camera was on.

Most of the people she talked to were like, "We don't hate America, we hate the American government." And, "Saddam Hussein is a great leader...we are happy with him." Also, "We won the Persian Gulf war."

However, from what Banfield noted, they don't have access to any outside media (unless they tune their radios to the VOA in secret...that's my own personal guess).

And thank goodness we all know for absolute certain that Hussein will never ever act irrationally.

So by that same argument, the Taliban never would have housed al Qaeda, because it wasn't in their national interest to do so.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmm.

Housing Al Qaeda was completely different then an all out attack on another country. However, whether or not the Taliban knew that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US is something we will probably never know for sure. Saddam is content with things as they are, he has nearly unlimited resources for his personal pleasure, and his citizens do not seem likely turn on him. Why would he attack another country especially one as powerful as the US? It would be committing suicide.

Al Queda honestly believed that, on their own, they could bring down the US. They executed phase one. Unfortunately for them they were rudely interrupted before phase two.

Hussein honestly believes that, if the US invaded, he would win.

Who's to say he can't come up with a strategy whereby he honestly believes he can bring down the US? The problem is, we don't really even want him to *try*.

Hussien is ambitious, nto stupid, look at his pervious actions 'irrational' no, ambitious, yes. I think Cam has illustrated my point.

Actually it was in theri national interest, by the stage Al Queda virtually controlled the Taliban.

Syc - I've seen a mix of things. I think the most accurate quote i saw which was from a video was froma street stall owner "You'll find plenty of people here who dislike Saddam, but noone here likes the US".

You're not being logical. There is no reason for him to attack the US, and don't even try the rather silly ' he's a madman because he used chemical weapons ON HIS OWN PEOPLE' line, it's equally silly. Saddam's forces are half what they were at the start of the gulf war, war is not what he wants. Yes, he misestimated US forces in Kuwait, the same way the US misestimated Vietnam, Somalia et al. I don't see you calling the US army irrational.

Perhaps because we're not discussing Vietnam or Somalia. <b>You</b> are not being logical. You're intentionally attempting to mislead the reader by bringing up a wholly irrelevant side-argument.

Yes, it was in their national interest. Which explains why they are now simply "pockets of resistance" instead of "the ruling Taliban". It simply wasn't in their national interest to house al Qaeda, because that's what got them a good ass-fucking by coalition forces. Get real.

You are thinking <b>rationally</b>. There is no guarantee that Hussein will do the same.

Tony touched on it, but allow me to expand. Hussein honestly believes that he could take the U.S. if they invaded. He honestly believes that the mightiest military in the world would be toppled if they attempted to remove him from power. This notion, if he believes it to be true, falls into one of two categories.

The first is the "irrational" category. It is not a clear line of thinking. He is well informed of the U.S. military's technology and their strengths, but he is convinced that Allah will ensure that he is victorious (or all other Arab nations will rise up in support, or... choose your reason). However, it is simply not true. The U.S. military will not lose any more wars because of their technological advantage over any adversaries. Yes, there will certainly be ground casualties, but we will not be sending in half a million ground troops for hand-to-hand combat. Wars these days are waged from far away, with computers and smart bombs. The U.S. will not risk so many casualties as to do a full invasion of the territory.

The other is the "grossly ignorant" category. This would be the case if he thought the U.S. was going to invade with paintball guns and throwing stars. It is possible (though not likely - I believe the first case is the correct one) that Hussein does not know the extent of the U.S. military's arsenal and is confident that he could take a conventional military. This may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter, because he wouldn't be fighting a conventional army. This isn't Vietnam and U.S. troops aren't digging in to sand dunes to fight. Computers, smartbombs... that is how this altercation (if one does occur) will be fought.

So, that being the case... the question is, can we trust that Hussein will act in a wholly rational manner for the rest of his reign? I think that we can't, because he has previously demonstrated he is capable of irrational thought when it comes to an altercation with the United States.

That, my friends, is why we need to get weapons inspectors back in Iraq as soon as possible.

My point is that people over and under estimate in conflicts, including the US. Doing so does not make Saddam irrational. I do not believe Saddam can be classified as irrational, look at his career, he is smart, ambitious and calculating, he has survived the first gulf war, circumnavigated the sanctions and basically defeated them in Europe and is making it very difficult for Bush to actually find any basis whatsoever to attack Iraq. His war with Iran was well planned, the Kuwait operation was overambitious, but from his perspective at the time, makes perfect sense. Say what you will but he is a survivor (look at his rise to power) and a smart one.

I think you are misunderstanding national interest - it is decided by the nation, not what you or anyone else thinks is best for the nation. Secondly as it was controlled by Al Queda, it not in the interest of the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

Your answer to cam is mostly answered in my first point, which you attempted to butcher with all the finesse of a chainsaw.

As for US casualties, it's worth noting that all the US tech comes to buggar all when it comes to street to street conflict, the US's own wargames in a custom made town showed around a 60% casualty rate, and that in a city, smart bombs are utterly useless.

On a side note this article that appeared in the Australian today does a better job of articulating my arguments to do with the impact of any war on Iraq on the International COmmunity as a whole better than I could, gets a bit Australia-centric though.

the US's own wargames in a custom made town showed around a 60% casualty rate,

The purpose of wargaming is not to "win" but to develop strategies and tactics. If you "win" you haven't learned anything and your training is for nothing.

and that in a city, smart bombs are utterly useless.

Snort. Listen, don't worry about what strategies the US forces will use if they go in. I'm absolutely certain they have guys who know more about this stuff than you do.

Remember how many people were absolutely convinced that Afghanistan was gonna be a severe rout, an endless morass, because the Russians couldn't do it and even The Princess Bride advocated against land war in Asia?

57 US casualties so far.