Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq

[Spiffor]

When was FG banned again ?

[chequita guevara]

¡PRD! ¡PRD! ¡PRD!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP


I think they would be better served by unilateral free trade policies and by introducing more free-market reforms. oh...and the rule of law. If they form a pact like the EU that promotes free trade in the region, that will be good. But if they try to get into pecker-flexing contests, than I think it will be counterproductive.

Privatization of oil and gas, and total restructuring of tax policy were some of what I lumped in as structural reforms, as well as major emphasis on education. The problem here is perception - in Mexico, the PRI did a good job of convincing everyone that paternalistic socialism was what the masses needed (while catering to billionaire political allies), and much of Latinamerica has seen "free enterprise" as the ability of a group of elites to reap the benefit of massive exploitation.

There needs to be some reshaping of perceptions, and some growing up first, because otherwise, pecker-checker politics is pretty much what you're going to get.

Still, an EU type trading bloc would have a hell of an impact.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sava, gawd man. Like you aren't a flame-warrior.

I'm a bit more subtle though.

Anyways. GP, I'm not going to talk to you any more unless you are going to post something on-topic that has any intellilectual value.

The fact is, Saddam's military capability was about 15-20% of what it was before the 1991 war. He wasn't a threat to anyone in the region, let alone the US. Normally, I would shut up and wait to be proved wrong, but eternity is a long time.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
Maybe you can say hi to FG and Bodds soon.

Naah, GP's on my exempt list.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, you told me to stick my head up my ass. I may troll myself into oblivion, but I've been very good at not personally attacking people. Keep on trucking. Maybe you can say hi to FG and Bodds soon.

Wimp. You showed your ass. Call for the mods now.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Naah, GP's on my exempt list.

It's nice to know the rules don't apply to everyone.

One more thing. The quickness of the US victory proves that Saddam's military wasn't a threat. But GP, continue your "Saddam was a threat" rhetoric. I'm always up for a good laugh.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Naah, GP's on my exempt list.

Maybe I should cool it though. I still need some techie help for my gf's computer.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm a bit more subtle though.

Anyways. GP, I'm not going to talk to you any more unless you are going to post something on-topic that has any intellilectual value.

The fact is, Saddam's military capability was about 15-20% of what it was before the 1991 war. He wasn't a threat to anyone in the region, let alone the US. Normally, I would shut up and wait to be proved wrong, but eternity is a long time.

Saddam's capability was significantly higher than that - you can't equate capability with willingness to mount up and get slaughtered for a buffoon. Given the size of the country, and the time frame, it's very premature to write off Iraqi WMD development and intentions, just because we haven't found much yet.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava

It's nice to know the rules don't apply to everyone.

One more thing. The quickness of the US victory proves that Saddam's military wasn't a threat. But GP, continue your "Saddam was a threat" rhetoric. I'm always up for a good laugh.

Don't think of it as me getting special privileges. Think of it as you getting special persecution.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava

It's nice to know the rules don't apply to everyone.

They do, they just apply differently.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP


Don't think of it as me getting special privileges. Think of it as you getting special persecution.

ROFLMFAO!

[Sava]

touche

Saddam's capability was significantly higher than that - you can't equate capability with willingness to mount up and get slaughtered for a buffoon. Given the size of the country, and the time frame, it's very premature to write off Iraqi WMD development and intentions, just because we haven't found much yet.

His conventional capability was almost nill. Any offensive action by him would have been met with a united effort against him. The US and Britain kicked his ass on their own. A coalition like the first one would have only been more effective. And Saddam was much closer to having a successful nuclear program in the 80's. Israel alone has done more to stop Saddam's WMD endeavors than the US. The fact is, since 1991, Saddam's capabilities have decreased. The French and German plan of increased inspections and more pressure would have slowly choked him. And by buying more time, it would have made a much more favorable regime change situation possible. But instead, Iraqi's see the US as conquerers. And while I know the US isn't in the conquering business, it's extremely important for the Iraqi opinion to be on our side. Number one, it gives greater credibility to any post-Saddam regime. Number two, it decreases the possiblity of terrorist attack significantly. And third, and most importantly, it doesn't give Islamic fundmentalists any rhetoric to use against us.

There were three possible solutions to the problem of Iraq:
Do nothing (bad)
Stall and slowly choke Saddam (the best solution)
Play cowboy and invade (get's rid of Saddam, but creates bigger problems)

What's done is done. But the US continues to screw the pooch. Hopefully things will still be managable in 2004. Then America can hang a "Under New Management" sign on the door and begin to fix the problems Dubya has created.

[TCO]

That is probably a more reasonable argument. I would only add that the very real threat of force was needed to get the inspections going. And that the French/German enthusiasm for the inspections seemed more to be as a means of stopping US going to war than out of interest in constraining Saddam.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
That is probably a more reasonable argument. I would only add that the very real threat of force was needed to get the inspections going. And that the French/German enthusiasm for the inspections seemed more to be as a means of stopping US going to war than out of interest in constraining Saddam.

This is true. However, I feel the inspections + threats combo could have worked. We'll never know though.