Eat this Saddam lovers

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


Maybe his "at the moment" cpability was not up to it. But he was biding his time. It was better to deal with it now...maybe down the line, we wouldn't have had the will.

bottom line. He made agreements at the point of a gun in 1991. He blew them off. We brought back the gun.

Snooze. Biding his time? It had been 12 years and he had absolutely no ****ing future prospects. He was a has-been.
There is such a thing as too much willingness to use force, just as there is such a thing as too much unwillingness.

[KrazyHorse]

Fighting Saddam in 2003 would have been like fighting Germany in 1930. As I recall, they'd dicked around with their agreements then too. And no, at that point it wouldn't have been worth it. Not unless you can claim an incredible amount of prescience.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap

And without the US, that war would never have been fought. Or maybe we would have had to fight it AFTER Saudi Arabia was taken over.

And did he have any designs on SA? As of August 2 1990, saddam could have just kept driving: there was no need to stop at the SA Kuwait border if Saudi Arabia was the aim, anymore than the Germans would have had to stop to consolidate Denmark when going after Norway.

He certainly had designs on the overall region. We even fought a battle on SA soil. But noone knows why he didn't just keep going. I assume that he wanted to avoid a war. Figured he'd eat one morsel and wait. since you used a Hitler analogy, maybe you can think of some there.

In other words, he did not stop because:

a. He didn't want SA.

or

b. he couldn't keep going logistically

rather

c. He planned to get it eventually.

But of course, there is d (he is an idiot) to consider.

In the end who knows. Maybe even A is right. I doubt it. But maybe you could make an argument there. But after swallowing one neighbor, it was too much of a danger that he would want the next later.

[TCO]

So we are only supposed to fight large forces, Kitty? We can't fight aggressive weak ones? I think the Cold War showed that we are much more willing to fight an aggressive weak one than an aggressive strong one. That's why we didn't fight the Warsaw Block.

[Proteus_MST]

I wonder how much time Saddam would have needed to rearm his troops to reach the same military strength as in 1991, considering that, because of the Embargos being in Place most of the Weapons and other stuff (spareparts and the like) his army needed could only be smuggled in with great difficulties.
(asuming that no war had taken place and a Weapons Embargo would stay in Place after even after the UN Inspectors finally claimed that Saddam doesn´t possess any WMDs and so most other Embargos would get lifted)

1 Decade? 2 Decades? Even longer?

[TCO]

I wasn't willing to take the chance. He had played a cat and mouse game with inspections. If he had complied with them and we knew that he had no WOMD (not the reverse) than I would have been willing to wait it out. But he had been failing to cooperate for a while. The inspectors were only reintroduced at the point of a gun. It was very evident that he took the long view and that he did his best to try to fracture the coalition required to keep him isolated and in check.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh hell. Again with the stinking red savages?
They have it made.
They're spending the equivalent of the national deficit, adding on to their bingo halls.

wtf?

Care to elaborate, Sloww?

[TCO]

Seemed pretty easy to understand to me. I don't agree. But I understand.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
So we are only supposed to fight large forces, Kitty? We can't fight aggressive weak ones? I think the Cold War showed that we are much more willing to fight an aggressive weak one than an aggressive strong one. That's why we didn't fight the Warsaw Block.

No, but Hitler justification only works for aggressive strong forces. Need other justifications for weak ones. Need something like benefits outweighing costs. Aggressive strong force is exempt from that requirement because you can argue future necessity. In other words inaction is a direct threat to your future ability for action.

Otherwise, as I've said, you've created a blanket justification for war all the time. Which is stupid and opens you up to "so if you fought X, why didn't you fight Y and Z". And the only answer I've seen from anybody on that is "because we didn't feel like it. Inconsistent and hypocritical. Points to mendaciousness.

[KrazyHorse]

Evidence for CBN weapons was sorely lacking, for the good reason that they didn't exist in significant quantities...

Bogeyman made up by your liar of an admin to scare their own population into backing them.

I've talked to a number of people here who are starting to feel angry about that (ones who were originally up for a fight).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by TCO


He certainly had designs on the overall region. We even fought a battle on SA soil. But noone knows why he didn't just keep going. I assume that he wanted to avoid a war. Figured he'd eat one morsel and wait. since you used a Hitler analogy, maybe you can think of some there.

In other words, he did not stop because:

a. He didn't want SA.

or

b. he couldn't keep going logistically

rather

c. He planned to get it eventually.

But of course, there is d (he is an idiot) to consider.

In the end who knows. Maybe even A is right. I doubt it. But maybe you could make an argument there. But after swallowing one neighbor, it was too much of a danger that he would want the next later.

Based on a lot of things, I think Saddam didn't want Saudi Arabia proper. More religious fanatics, more terrain that is hard to defend, and custodianship of Mecca and Medina would all be hard to defend.

What Saddam did want is "do you want to be my ***** next?" leverage for negotiating with SA and the other gulf monarchies. After the Iran-Iraq war, he was in a mess economically, he wanted new toys for his military, and he felt that since he kept the Iranians off of everyone's ass and got most of his southern oil production hammered in the process, that his "brother Arabs" could damn well chip a bit more of their fortunes to help him after all he'd done for them.

The Kuwaitis were arrogant ****** (they still are) and nobody liked them, so Saddam figured when they told him to stuff himself that making a little example of them would teach everyone else a lesson. Saddam wanted a ten billion "loan" and an adjustment of a disputed border area which the Kuwaitis kept building in, despite a prior agreement not to.

Under the circumstances, I wouldn't quite put it as (d) he was an idiot, but more (e) he made a big, but not unreasonable, miscalculation as to everyone's reaction. The Emir of Kuwait and the Kuwaiti royals were pretty much the last group that you'd expect to generate any sympathy, whether real or strategic.

WRT the attack in and around al Khafji, that showed all the signs of being a very poorly coordinated, maybe even "accidental" (a la the intent was simply to reposition, and the "attack" built up from a movement to contact) local action by one Iraqi infantry division with no indication of Corps or higher level support. A FUBAR, in other words.

Saddam is still an ******* though, and the world is better off without him.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Evidence for CBN weapons was sorely lacking, for the good reason that they didn't exist in significant quantities...

Bogeyman made up by your liar of an admin to scare their own population into backing them.

I've talked to a number of people here who are starting to feel angry about that (ones who were originally up for a fight).

Yep, Apolyton seems to be a good place to see this Phenomenon.
Many of those people who backed the war now get more and moe angry about the Bush-Administration as it, with pasng time becomes clearer and clearer that the reason for the UN-Inspectors not finding any WMDs may be, that there were no WMDs in Iraq (at least not in the quantities clamed by the US Administration).
We had the ame in a grman Forum. from 4 Pro War People now 3 have turned Anti War as thee wasn´t found any Evidence for WMDs

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Dissident
Saddam did nothing wrong (aside from tyring to assassinate presdient bush).

unbelievable

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Yep, Apolyton seems to be a good place to see this Phenomenon.

Actually, I meant "here" as my physical location in the gunshot capital of the US.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by centrifuge


unbelievable

What's unbelievable? Diss's troll, or someone falling for it?