UK sending 31,000 troops to the gulf.

[KrazyHorse]

I think that if he has them he'll use them if the troops get close enough to him. In that event, his life is forfeit anyway.

[Ramo]

BTW, what do we do if ten years from now, the Democratic Republic of Iraq, with it's Shiite majority, decides to elect a Shiite fundamentalist government that decides it needs to acquire nukes to be a legitimate regional power? Do we invade them again for not being our *****es, or do we have a coherent plan in place to make sure they only pretend to elect people friendly to our interests?

I don't know if a new Shia fundie state is a major danger. The Iraqis at least in the past have been fairly secular, and Saddam has been crushing the Islamist movement pretty ruthlessly. The "problems" are an Iran-friendly regime in the South and a Kurdish state in the North, both anti-thetical to "US interests."

[Edan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?

How does North Korea make Saddam look like Mr. Rogers? They both look just as evil in my book. (Or does an election in which one candidate gets 99.99 whatever of the vote really take it a step any closer to democracy?)

But anyway, Iraq has been violating it's side of the agreements for 11+ years. We've tried diplomatic, political and economic action to try to get them to abide by the agreements, and we've also tried light military action (eg Desert Fox). None of those have worked succesfully. And unless Iraq stops playing games, and the inspectorrs can say that Iraq has been taking steps towards disarmament, war, imo, becomes a valid solution, because it's the only one we haven't yet tried. If you have another solution, I'd be glad to hear it.

As for North Korea, this is a new situation, and one in which many options are still on the table. War should be used as a last resort, not the first.

And NK likely possession of nuclear weapons also certainly changes the dynamics of the situation.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Having reading problems again, Jimmy? I don't recall criticizing foreign leaders who aren't our lackeys as being "spineless" - I might or might not have other reasons to have little regard for their existence, but spinelessness usually is not demonstrated by a refusal to kowtow to US policy.

Again?

MtG, its a general attitude I sense from you. I just wonder what you would say if Blair had refused to partake in a war... something not too positive, I'm sure.

I for one am happy he's taken the US's side on this.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ramo - in and of itself, a fundie Shiite state is unlikely in the extreme. I was just thinking Khamanei, et al, would like to play in that sandbox.

Edan - Repeated infiltration and incursion into the DMZ, SOF incursions into RoK land and sea space, and other frequent preparations for waging offensive war, plus the amount of tube and rocket artillery dug into the DMZ. Kim Jong Il has starved far more of his people to maintain a far more credible military thread than Saddam ever has, or could dream of.

Drake - if we let the DPRK pull that one, on the basis of one or two nukes, we've lowered the creampuff threshold considerably - that level of military power over which we concede that despite 300 billion a year, we can't do jack except ask nicely or talk loud. If having a few nukes effectively nullifies US power projection, we're fairly screwed as a meaningful superpower, and we may as well start realizing that, and changing our policies and our priorities accordingly. Nukes are going to be more available to ******* dictators in the future, not less.


Jimmy - given that I don't think there is an adequate present threat to commit a majority of the combat forces of the US, nor an adequate international and arab world consensus for invasion and regime change, nor an adequately developed plan (at least that has been mentioned in public) for building meaningful political institutions in a post-Saddam Iraq, I'd be rather pleased if Blair took the opportunity to put the brakes on Bush.

[Jon Miller]

it is thought by the US military that any fight with NK would result in millions dead

that makes NK not a creampuff

Jon Miller

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then it would have to be considered rather stupid to call them a member of "an axis of evil" if we don't have the power to do more than ask them nicely to not do things that offend us.

[Drake Tungsten]

If having a few nukes effectively nullifies US power projection, we're fairly screwed as a meaningful superpower, and we may as well start realizing that, and changing our policies and our priorities accordingly.

But don't nukes effectively nullify US power? I wish it wasn't true, but it seems to be. All the power projection in the world can't stop a North Korean nuke from hitting Tokyo (or Seattle in a few years).

Nukes are going to be more available to ******* dictators in the future, not less.

All the more reason to start taking nuclear proliferation seriously; it's been on the back burner for far too long. Just look at how that inattention has paid off in North Korea...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lancer
Blair is paying a big price for his support of the US, as this thread shows, so his government is certainly strong willed.

You mean "boneheaded and senseless," yes?

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Ramo
So how long till Blair's gov't comes crashing down?

Blair is actually pretty safe because of the alternatives (or rather the lack of them). That is why he can afford to sound committed to doing something about Saddam.

OTOH I for one will be very surprised if the British Challenger tanks actually make it from their starting points across the Iraqi border without breaking down. The incompetence of our Ministry of Defence must be one of Saddam's biggest advantages.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If having a few nukes effectively nullifies US power projection, we're fairly screwed as a meaningful superpower, and we may as well start realizing that, and changing our policies and our priorities accordingly.

But don't nukes effectively nullify US power? I wish it wasn't true, but it seems to be. All the power projection in the world can't stop a North Korean nuke from hitting Tokyo (or Seattle in a few years).

That's why the US has to make a decision (and rather shortly).

Either you're badasses who will take a nuke or two in order to prove a point, or you're not.

If you are, then Bush is the perfect president. He talks tough, doesn't mind who he offends, makes threats.

If you aren't, then you guys might want to remember that before you let crises get to the point that the NK crisis has gotten to. And it looks every day more and more like the US is going to ***** down to NK. Which is as I think it should be and all, but it's an image problem for the US to have pulled out of talks and then relent to NK's every demand. Never mind how much people are going to ***** you guys out for getting on Saddam's ass but not on Kim's.

[Worthingtons]

MtG, I am not sure why you dislike your allies, us brittish so much. I would agree Blair, in general follows american foriegn policy but it's hardly like we are merely one of your little colonies as you'd like to believe, Blair is by no means compelled to Join the War.
The fact British public opinion is against the war hardly proves your point. Blair rarely acts on public opinion, he makes decisions and sticks to them, he never backed down on the petrol fiasco, and he didnt back down on Tuition fees, to name 2 instances.

We are a responsable nation, and are acting as one, and pleased to assist our great ally, the US.

The size of the deployment suprises even me, and aint anything to be scoffed at. I just hope most of them manage to return ok tho, Ground war's are never a good thing.
Cheers
Matt

[KrazyHorse]

MtG doesn't dislike the British; he dislikes their leadership on this issue.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?

MtG: The anwser is China. We won't go after NK because it will involve possibly going to war with China. You don't like it? Tough, that's the real world. You do what you can, where you can, and when you can. We can do something about Iraq but we can't really do much about NK.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
And Saddam isn't stupid enough to use WMD's on us, or give them to al-Qaeda et al. who are bent on destroying him.

I'd bet even money he will order them used. If the invasion happens and he feels he's going to die any way then I suspect Saddam will try to go out with a bang. Of course this will mean the allies will retaliate just to make an example of what happens to people who use WoMD and ironically it will confirm that Saddam has been lieing the whole time.

If that happens I hope some of our anti war friends will apologize from acting simple mindedly. I won't hold my breath though.