[Jhoffa_]

I would just love debating this guy. He is good enough to be worthy of my efforts.

Personally, I think it's a stupid article and the authors aren't worthy of your toenail clippings.. much less a debate.

I quit reading when they tried to make the case that Saddam is only dangerous when his regime is threatened or venerable.. Then they go on to Kuawit, which wasn't doing things the way OPEC likes them to be done and refused to pay extortion money to Saddam.

Now, if that's all you have to do to get yourself in trouble with Iraq then I would certainly say he's unstable and cannot be trusted. What's the alternative? Make sure his regiem is always prosperous, stable and contented?

Further, choosing war over the disarmament he agreed to, twice, makes the case for "unintentionally suicidal" imho.

Further still, launching scud's at non-combatants and torching the enemies oil fields during a retreat are war crimes. There's enough instability here to keep Freud tied up for years...

[Torie]

I think the authors are trying to make the point that the policy of containment was not vigorously enough pursued before, and thus Saddam miscalculated. But I enjoyed your post nevertheless.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There's enough instability here to keep Freud tied up for years..."

You think Saddam has...issues?