Well, let's see. We do no nothing, sit on our hands and hope and pray that a "pitiful dictator" with both the means and the inclination to do us harm will do nothing. Or, on the other hand, seize the moment and put a stop to a man who has a track record of terrorist behavior.

In my profession (and especially in my line of work) we like to say that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Judging from Saddam's past behavior is not hard to predict what he will do next if he is not stopped now.

Sam, you can choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend that by playing "nice-nice" with Saddam he will go away. I am glad, however, that the leaders in the White House do not think like you.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

===========================================

Alex,

Actually I am glad that you brought up Cuba, since that is a subject on which I have some experience. I hope that your own knowledge about the missile crisis is not limited to Oliver Stone's take on the subject.

At the time of the missile crisis, the U.S. had the ability to force Russia to back down. And Russia backed down, hauling their missiles from Cuba. The U.S. intercepted Russian boats, carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba and forced them to return. Had Kennedy not used force, Cuba would have become Russia's forward nuclear base.

What if Russia had not backed down and forced a confrontation? The U.S. would probably have invaded Cuba and taken out the missile sites. Would Russia have come to Castro's rescue? It is doubtful. As it stands, Castro was furious that the Russians would agree to pull the missile out of Cuba without even as much as consulting with him. CVastro was furious with Kruschev and to this day he has not forgiven the old farmer. If Russian military history is any indication, Russia would have allowed the U.S. to take the missiles out of Cuba without so much as firing a shot.

Either way, it was Kennedy's show of strength, and not some paralyzing hand-wringing that forced the issue and made the Western Hemisphere safer for for everyone.

And as long as we are on the subject of the Cuban missile crisis, remember how Russia denied, denied and then again denied some more the presence of Russian missiles in Cuban soil. Gee, what does that remind me of...???

Alex and Sam and Manu, you can all sit around and politely debate the wisdom of going to war to disarm a despot with a track record of atrocities. I suppse that had any of you been alive in 1939 you'd be doing the same even after Hitler invaded Checzkoslovakia, after he invaded Poland and even after he invaded France. You'd all have probably said, c'est la vie! every time Hitler added another country to his trophy case.

Look, you have a right to your opinion. But when men and women of strength and resolve decide to take action, when you are either unwilling or unable to do so, then for god's sake stand aside and don't get on the way.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Look, Benz-LGB, I have said several times that I'm not necessarily against going to war. Actually, I have said several times that I'm FOR going to war provided that we can clean up the mess well and leave the region in stability and balance. How is that? I live in NYC and when I saw all those people rushing to protest war, I thought they were highly unreasonable. I thought that many of them were the types that would protest ANYTHING. It's like they're sticking it to the 'man' or something. I'm FOR removing Saddam, and that being said, I'm just advocating more prudence. Unfortunetely, we don't know how Bush intends to leave the region once this is done with.

Speaking as a pragmatist, and having studied the mathematical probabilities and game theory of international politics, I think this war is inevitable and therefore think we should do it soon to save costs, and to save complicaton. I think the longer we wait, the more complicated the situation will be. I do think Bush owes us more of an explanation of his plans, and he needs to make a final address showing us his evidence. Reasonable?

And just as a matter of point, I am just as disgusted with the under the table alliance between the Swiss and the Nazis. I think though, that every country has something at stake in this conflict. This has the potential to complete upset the global balance. Again, not saying that we SHOULDN'T go to war, just something to think about.

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

There have been a lot of people thinking about post war Iraq since WJ Clinton first floated the idea of 'Nation Building' in that country during his second term in office. (Now that the Dems are not in power, they refer to it as the 'dangerous game of regime change') Reports from some of the working groups of that era are on the net and discuss the issues. (Shiite, Kurds, Turkey, regional antipathy to change, Saudi reluctance to see a BIG stable oil producer undercut their influence over the west, etc.) One of the more interesting examples of these older papers is at http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/IraqNationOptions111898.PDF . Ironically, this 1998 report also discusses Iraqi options for supporting terrorist, specifically mid eastern extremists, in their actions within the US. It also discusses their potential for purchasing nuclear material, biochemical attacks on neighbors or western countries, using their own people or resources as hostages, invading a neighboring state and using them as hostages, using WMD for holding western states hostage, etc.

There are currently Governmental groups looking at these issues and more under the general oversight of the State department, and includes Kurdish leaders-in-exile and representatives from neighboring countries. Non governmental organizations are also providing input. I think the report linked above had a good perspective - the goal is not to create a perfect Iraq (too many diverse groups and special interests in Iraq and the neighbors for that). A stable Iraq, lacking a history of existing as anything but artificial lines drawn on the map arbitrarily by the British when they left the region, will probably require some degree of authoritarian controls in the new government to hold all the diverse regional interests together.

The point is, groups of people in and out of government are addressing the issues.

__________________
John

2003 Firemist Red/grey leather SL 500
2015 Palladium Silver/black mbtex GLK 350
1987 Smoke Silver/burgundy mbtex 300E Sportline (SOLD)

Click to see 87 300E

John,
That was very interesting. I hope the information and analysis is being presented to Pres. Bush in a way he can understand it. It's so crucial that we do this right. Unfortunetely, democracy doesn't really work without well entrenched, long established civil institutions, institutions that Iraq lacks. I think you're right about needing some sort of authoritarian rule post-Saddam. I hope someone good who is accountable to us AND the UN is installed when this is all over.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

But if we remove Saddam, will more Middle Eastern radicals be empowered to commit terrorist acts against the United States and its people, both here and abroad? That's an unknown quantity, and judging by recent anti-US sentiment abroad that's taken place even BEFORE we've gone to war, who knows what'll happen next.

You're basically saying that you appreciate the short-term goal of removing Saddam (who is a tyrant in his own right in his little corner of the world) to the long-term goal of fending off more terrorism against the United States.

If anything, I can't help but think that this "war" will make Dubya one of Al Quaeda's best recruiters. And that I don't like.

-Sam

Sam,
That is a possibility but not a definite. Saddam is not very well liked in the region. He runs a secular country and is in very open competition with Saudi Arabia and Iran in what he thinks is a race to emerge as the hegemon of the region. Saddam wants to control the middle east. Religious extremists can't really relate to Saddam but who knows, they may decide that the enemy of their enemy is their enemy and form some kind of coalition against the US just because they both dislike the US. Who knows. That's just another variable we need to think about.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

This 2 page report from CSIS to world leaders summarizes what Powell gave as evidence against Iraq before the UN. The details are a lot more elaborate and compelling than what the newspapers reported. http://www.csis.org/burke/comment_powell.pdf

At one point I wished that the presence of the troops on the border with Iraq would inspire one of the colonels to 'double tap' their leader. Unfortunately, given the lack of power sharing by Sadam and no apparent designee to take over the reins, and the multiple mutually hostile special interest groups outside of power, this may actually be worse on everyone than a war - a multi-faction civil war like Lebanon that could go on for decades! Maybe that is one of the reasons for an invasion: A means of limiting the various groups who might otherwise create another Balkans!

__________________
John

2003 Firemist Red/grey leather SL 500
2015 Palladium Silver/black mbtex GLK 350
1987 Smoke Silver/burgundy mbtex 300E Sportline (SOLD)

Click to see 87 300E

"I am not trying to hold Manu personally liable for his country's past collaboration with the Nazis, such as accepting gold deposits that came directly from the fillings of massacred Jews. And I am not even trying to hold Manu liable for his country's current practice of protecting the privacy of depositors, even where the source of the deposits is drug traffic. Hey, if the Swiss think that they can be safe by selling out to the Devil himself, well, more power to them."

Once again, that statement is inaccurate and incomplete. Banking secrecy does NOT mean that you can just deposit money without giving some kind of justification for it. I think you should REALLY gather up some more information because I'm sorry to say but that it just pure propaganda as far as I'm concerned, it is obvious you have no idea of what you're talking about. I dare you to come over here and try to make a deposit without giving some justification about the origin of the assets. Once again, you're not a banker, obviously not very good at history either...

And I'm sick and tired of those unjustified attacks attack what my country supposedly did with the jewish gold/assets. My country's banks have been accused of witholding assets. What about the BILLIONS that have been kept and not turned over to the nazis, even when they were increasing pressure everyday? Look at the map if you will and picture Europe during World War II, we're right in the middle of it, yet we resisted giving up these informations and we held and those billions were returned to their rightful owners. Ever thought about that?

"Selling out to the devil"... What B-S...Which country still produces anti-personal mines? Not mine. Which country supports the state terrorism of Israel no matter what? Not mine. Which country is gonna go on an illegal war which will kill and maim thousands of innocent people? Not mine. Which country droped nukes on non-military objectives killing hundreds of thousands? Not mine. Which country was built over the blood and tears of the native habitants of it? Still not mine. I can go and find hundred of things the US did which are horrible as well. The reason I don't is because it is NOT RELEVANT. This topic is about Iraq. Tell us about Iraq. Where are your points? You mention something about law school. Don't they teach you to have valid information and proof? I still don't see any in your posts...Just the spreading of hate and misinformation. Are you even capable of debating about any subject at all? Or do you just aggress anyone who disagrees with you? Go to college or something, learn about things such as debate, discussion, point, proofs and stuff and then you can talk. Objectivity comes with education.

And since you're so obsessed with all what the nazis have done, how can you drive a german car? You implicitely call me a nazi supporter because I live in Switzerland yet you roll in GERMAN cars? You support the german economy by buying your little trains? What sort of coherence is that? If you had any sort of moral integrity you could never do that. So call me a nazi if you will, I could care less really, but the bottom line is YOU are supporting an illegal war which is gonna kill thousands of innocent people, I'm not, that's the difference...Doesn't mean I don't like Americans. If you can understand that, good. If not, you should just go back to playing with your little trains, cause really, you didn't contribute to this debate in ANY way.

True, he may be driving a German car, but Mercedes was a Jew

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Iraq has the potential of becoming a mess much worse than Vietnam, this time the enemy and enemies to be have discovered the ability to reach across the ponds and really create havoc.

The variables involved in this campaign are just too many to control specially when there is a lack of quorum in the global community.

There was once a Quorum where Mr. Hussein could have been dethroned/eliminated without protest but that opportunity has slipped and now it is difficult for many world leaders to agree with us on the issue of forcing a regime change as this opens the gates for the process to be repeated say in China, Cuba or where ever else.

Frankly we were asleep at the switch during the gulf war and missed an opp and were snoozing the past decade or more, when deadline after deadline were missed. Now all of a sudden it is difficult to make things happen a rush to judgment when we are dealing with a skilled opponent who plays the game of stalling and making micro sacrifices to mollify the world. (Its hard to get people to block bullets when you are doing it!)

That said, once we see a tangible threat ie.. discovery of a large cache of biological/chemical bombs etc. Push the button and be done with overwhelming force. Perhaps that is what is being done now: have everything locked and ready. When such proof is delivered the whole UN etc will be supportive. It would help if the UN security council got a little ballsy and put some concrete consequences behind their peace brokering requirements in the middle-east and the world as a whole.

I say philosophically we (democracies of the world) should use capitalism as the Juggernaut to change the world, provide opportunities and partner with only the democratic nations of the world while excluding the non democratic nations. This will fuel the fires of change faster than feeding a regime or dictatorial/communistic government with trade and aid wealth.

Ability to see an increase in standard of living when a democratic government is put in place will speak volumes louder than the threat of a bomb. Its a matter of tangibalizing the benefits of democracy. There is an inherent issue in the logic of Regime change we should be causing a fundamental change in government not replacing one dictator with another. Specially when so many hand picked/assisted dictators/regimes can and or have gone sour.

Wasnt Mercedes just the name of the guys niece or something? Not the guy who created the company.

I'm not a diehard Mercedes fanatic, so this might be wrong:

Emil Jellinek, an Austo- Hungarian Consul General partnered up with Daimler to produce race cars around 1900, 1901. providing investment capital and sales rights, Daimler insisted that the cars be named after his daughter Mercedes. Yadda yadda yadda, some time passed, the cars were successful, engines were built in the US with a partnership with the Steinway piano company and cars were sold in the US and all over Europe. Benz at this point was a separate company making their own cars. The defeat of Germany in WWI and the resulting economy, Benz almost went bankrupt due to some ********* speculator who would order and buy cars but then wouldn't pay for them. Wilheml Kissel, the director of the Benz company set up a merger with Daimler and the two came together in 1926 (or so). Daimler made up of 65% of the company and Benz 35%, so Daimler came first in the name. BUT, since Jellinek insisted on the use of his daughter's name, Mercedes came first. Mercedes-Benz.

Of course this is terribly over simplified. There's a whole history of different engine designs, aircraft making and racing, but I don't remember any of that, I read this story a long ime ago.

Hope this helps.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Hi All,

From http://www.mbcags.org/mercedes.htm

On 16th September 1889, a third child was born to businessman Emil Jellinek in Vienna. Rachel and Emil Jellinek gave their daughter a Spanish Christian name which means"grace"and later became world-famous: Mercedes. Emil Jellinek moved his operations to Nice, taking his family with him. As Mercedes grew up, her father developed a passionate interest in automobiles,then in their infancy, and it was not long before the Daimler-Motoren Gesellschaft caught his attention. In 1893, Emil Jellinek travelled to Cannstatt and made the acquaintance of Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach. In the years which followed he bought a number of Daimler vehicles. In 1898,Jellinek ordered a Daimler Phoenix, requesting it to be delivered with a four- cylinder engine. He then drove the car in the Tour de Nice.

Since it was chic at the time to enter automobile competitions under a pseudonym, Jellinek appeared in the competitors' lists under the name Mercedes. Emil Jellinek, alias "Monsieur Mercedes",first won the Tour de Nice on 21st March 1899, when his daughter was just nine and a half years old. In 1900, the Daimler- Motoren Gesellschaft again improved on the design, by enlarging the wheelbase, lowering the centre of gravity and increasing engine power. Emil Jellinek was so taken with this design that he put in an order for thirty-six cars, worth 550,000 gold marks. He made his order subject to two conditions: firstly he must be made sole agent in Austria-Hungary, France and America. Secondly, the vehicles must be named after his daughter, Mercedes. The name caught on so well that soon the Daimler-Motoren Gesellschaft used it for all its cars and in 1902, a trademark was taken out. The "Mercedes" era had begun.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manu
[B]I don't think the absence of proof of their destruction proves that they exist. I think this argument is not valid enough when the lives of innocent women and children are at stake. Cooperation with Iraq will not happen overnight, it will take time, and not enough time was given.

Iraq has admitted to having these weapons in 1991. We know they have poison gas, they've used it. Since they have offered no proof of destruction, they still exist.

Why are't you asking for "proof of destruction"?

Proof of destruction would :

1) Prevent war
2) Lift sanctions that harm innocent women and children.


"And I respectfully disagree about the motivations of the French and German government. "

Why would you disagree? The French have come right out and said so.

Ahhhhh!!!!!

The real money quote:

"I'd rather see them alive under dictatorship than dead from some misdrop. "

Excuse me if I rather respond to the pleads of the oppressed Iraqis than ignore them.