Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq?

Moreover, I don't really understand how people can say that we shouldn't try to force democracy down people's throats and we should mind our own business, and simultaneously criticize the U.S. government for supporting other dictators. The U.S. government might be hypocritical insofar as it supports dictatorships yet talks about spreading democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to be hypocritical too.

A common misconception that alot of people have is that democracy is the right form of government for every country. We don't even really have a democracy, but rather a polyarchy (Polyarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy)).

That being said, It's not being hypocritical to support a dictator for one set of circumstances, and encourage democracy for another set. Different countries/people need to be governed by different strategies. Democracy is not a "blanket solution" that works on everything.

I think it's definately a close call. We've blundered our way through the past 3 years, but Saddam was a pretty bad dude.

I'm not talking about you 12thman, but I don't understand how people called for us to get involved in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Sudan because of humanitarian concerns, but totally ignore what Saddam Hussein did to his people. Intentionally killing 300,000+ civilians in a country the size of Iraq is just about as bad as it gets.

Moreover, I don't really understand how people can say that we shouldn't try to force democracy down people's throats and we should mind our own business, and simultaneously criticize the U.S. government for supporting other dictators. The U.S. government might be hypocritical insofar as it supports dictatorships yet talks about spreading democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to be hypocritical too.

I didn't take any of your reponse personally, thanks.

The only conclusion I can come to as to why we chose to get involved in Iraq as apposed to those others is because of the economic thread running through the situation in Iraq.

One thing that war tends to expose is both the strengths/weaknesses and hypocrosy of the invading nation.

Well, lets also not forget the efforts to remove him and over-take the country has led to the death of more than 655,000 people. I think we should have gone in during the Gulf War... but that's neither here nor there.

While Sadaam was a terrible tyrant... I'm not sure the country is in the "better". According to the Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm) there is alot of bad shit going on, and I think the United States needs to look long and hard at what our obligation necessarily is.

Where one see's a crime of omission, another see's an oppurtunity to avoid future conflict (ie middle east turmoil). We haven't seen the worst of what's going on yet... and we need to really really think about the implications of our actions.

Right now I'm sure attacking Iran is a wrong move. Theres way to much at stake.

Good article in Today's WP about Bush's recent comments on Iran. He's certainly going out of the way to avoid any language or pretext to war with Iran. Good move.

Good article in Today's WP about Bush's recent comments on Iran. He's certainly going out of the way to avoid any language or pretext to war with Iran. Good move.
I actually haven't read the paper yet today (late morning because of school closings)

I'm going to go drink some tomatoe soup and read that bad-boy...

Well, lets also not forget the efforts to remove him and over-take the country has led to the death of more than 655,000 people. I think we should have gone in during the Gulf War... but that's neither here nor there.

While Sadaam was a terrible tyrant... I'm not sure the country is in the "better". According to the Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm) there is alot of bad shit going on, and I think the United States needs to look long and hard at what our obligation necessarily is.

Where one see's a crime of omission, another see's an oppurtunity to avoid future conflict (ie middle east turmoil). We haven't seen the worst of what's going on yet... and we need to really really think about the implications of our actions.

Right now I'm sure attacking Iran is a wrong move. Theres way to much at stake.
I'm not sure how you came up with those numbers and the ones in you link assume allot of stuff. It used numbers saying that we starved them when food was suppose to be traded for oil. Where did the food go? I also here that the country had no money because of the embargo. He found money to build all those palaces and to rebuild his army but he let his people die. So I don't think those numbers can be accurate or used saying that the UN embargo killed them. Also some of the sources used was The Church of Christ which is a group that is against the war so how do we know that they don't make the numbers support their view?

I'm not sure how you came up with those numbers and the ones in you link assume allot of stuff. It used numbers saying that we starved them when food was suppose to be traded for oil. Where did the food go? I also here that the country had no money because of the embargo. He found money to build all those palaces and to rebuild his army but he let his people die. So I don't think those numbers can be accurate or used saying that the UN embargo killed them. Also some of the sources used was The Church of Christ which is a group that is against the war so how do we know that they don't make the numbers support their view?
Yeah, what I liked about the site is that it uses several sources to produce their own numbers. So if you disagree with their numbers... simply look at different sources and compare... (it's also interesting to see some of the drastic differences).

The 665,000 numbers for those who have died in the Iraqi war... those numbers are not hard to find. Washington post reports:

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html)
It's far higher than actual, and I should have looked further... but I needed a number and that's what I found

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/)

I'm not sure how you came up with those numbers and the ones in you link assume allot of stuff. It used numbers saying that we starved them when food was suppose to be traded for oil. Where did the food go? I also here that the country had no money because of the embargo. He found money to build all those palaces and to rebuild his army but he let his people die. So I don't think those numbers can be accurate or used saying that the UN embargo killed them. Also some of the sources used was The Church of Christ which is a group that is against the war so how do we know that they don't make the numbers support their view?

Exactly, the North Koreans are doing the same thing. Saddam and Kim Jong-Il starve their people and everyone blames us because those dictators prefer to supply their armies and personal palaces to feeding their people.

we can't invade iran. not without a massive, massive draft. logistically, it's just not possible without nuclear force, or a sweeping internal revolution for support.

we can't invade iran. not without a massive, massive draft. logistically, it's just not possible without nuclear force, or a sweeping internal revolution for support.

Is anyone actually considering invading Iran? I don't think even the most hawkish of politicians would support such a move. This is just another example of the media creating hype. Relations are bad with Iran and we have some serious issues to deal with (e.g., nukes and Iraq), but WW III is not going to break out.

Is anyone actually considering invading Iran? I don't think even the most hawkish of politicians would support such a move. This is just another example of the media creating hype. Relations are bad with Iran and we have some serious issues to deal with (e.g., nukes and Iraq), but WW III is not going to break out.

i know we won't, but for anyone that was wondering, iraq has 29million people (in 170,000 sq miles) and we don't have enough troops there to do what's being asked right now... iran has 70million people (in 636,000 sq miles) and post-conflict, would have vastly less stable borders in all likelihood. various news outlets (mainly tv) have hinted at it or asked about it every now and then, and it's just not even a remote possibility.