An Unnecessary War? (Long)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
I do not agree that he has been acting rationally

Based on what evidence?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Based on what evidence?

I think if he had conducted a proper risk assessment, he would have realized that he could not conquer Iran and that Iran would not quitely given him the strip of territory he wanted. The long bloody war that resulted was quite forseeable.

As to Kuwait, while he may have calculated correctly that the US would not intervene, he certainly underestimated the Saudi's and their influence on the US.

So, if he had the risk assessments before him and proceeded, he was not acting rationally. But I also think it is highly likely that he was not getting the right intelligence or risk assessments. Worse, if he proceeded without risk assessments - well he truly is irrational.

But the net result is the same whether he is irrational or whether he is not getting the right information.

But he clearly is a gambler and is willing to undertake a lot of risk. Witness his current gamble on defying the weapons inspectors. We can expect more of the same from him in the future if somehow he survives current events.

[Kramerman]

Contaiment could probably work, but I dunno if its the best solution. Rather than having a thorn in our side for God knows how long, wouldnt it be wiser to remove the thorn bush before it can grow into our side? I dunno.

I know its an entirely differet situation and scope, but I just cant help thinking if we coulda taken out the SU (if we would have known about the Cold War) just after Germany and Japan, and before they developed their first nuke, then that would have saved us a whole lot of trouble (tho taking on the SU wouldnt have been anywhere near as simple for the US and her allies as taking on Iraq... im aware of this, and other flaws... just cant help but thinking about this tho). It is quite debatable however on what the best approach is. I dont know if it is really wise at this point to take a staunch position for either side (contaiment or regime change), as both have their theoretical and speculatory advantages and disadvantages.

Kman

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I think if he had conducted a proper risk assessment, he would have realized that he could not conquer Iran and that Iran would not quitely given him the strip of territory he wanted.

Given the turmoil in Iran, it was not unreasonable to think that the country could be knocked out quickly.

As to Kuwait, while he may have calculated correctly that the US would not intervene, he certainly underestimated the Saudi's and their influence on the US.

Given that it was the US who pressured the Saudis and not the other way around, he had no reason to expect an American intervention. The Saudis were the ones who wanted to appease Hussein, not confront him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

But he clearly is a gambler and is willing to undertake a lot of risk. Witness his current gamble on defying the weapons inspectors. We can expect more of the same from him in the future if somehow he survives current events.

There are more obvious reasons for his current behaviour. These are:

(1) that he has good reason to believe that the US will attack no matter what he does.

(2) That he has good reason to think that the UN inspections are de facto intelligence gathering exercises or have been inflitrated by US intelligence.

(3) He needs WMD's as a deterrent to external (read: Iran) and internal (read: Shias and Kurds) threats.

From these:

(C) He wants to preserve as much weaponry as secretly as he can so that in the event of a likely invasion he has something to fight with or in the event of no invasion to preserve his own regime. After all, if the inspectors have a free hand to go where they want in Iraq it makes them the perfect intelligence gathering device for the US.

All in all it is a reasonable gamble given the situation.

He's been put between a rock and a hard place since he cannot be sure that compliance with the UN will lead to the survival of his regime, so he must invoke a duplicitous strategy.

[MRT144]

remove the thorn cause an infection...

[Agathon]

This isn't as good (the man argues atrociously IMHO) but it does attempt to address the original argument.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/162kkofc.asp

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ned
I think if he had conducted a proper risk assessment, he would have realized that he could not conquer Iran and that Iran would not quitely given him the strip of territory he wanted.

Given the turmoil in Iran, it was not unreasonable to think that the country could be knocked out quickly.

As to Kuwait, while he may have calculated correctly that the US would not intervene, he certainly underestimated the Saudi's and their influence on the US.

Given that it was the US who pressured the Saudis and not the other way around, he had no reason to expect an American intervention. The Saudis were the ones who wanted to appease Hussein, not confront him.

Che, one of these days, I would like to welcome you as you move in from the dark side.

Why do you consistently ignore or deny history? The US did in fact say to Saddam that he could invade Kuwait with impunity. It was the Saudi's that caused that decision to be reversed.

If you really disagree with this, please cite diplomatic communique's to the contrary.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


There are more obvious reasons for his current behaviour. These are:

(1) that he has good reason to believe that the US will attack no matter what he does.

(2) That he has good reason to think that the UN inspections are de facto intelligence gathering exercises or have been inflitrated by US intelligence.

(3) He needs WMD's as a deterrent to external (read: Iran) and internal (read: Shias and Kurds) threats.

From these:

(C) He wants to preserve as much weaponry as secretly as he can so that in the event of a likely invasion he has something to fight with or in the event of no invasion to preserve his own regime. After all, if the inspectors have a free hand to go where they want in Iraq it makes them the perfect intelligence gathering device for the US.

All in all it is a reasonable gamble given the situation.

He's been put between a rock and a hard place since he cannot be sure that compliance with the UN will lead to the survival of his regime, so he must invoke a duplicitous strategy.

Reasonable.

I think he is sliding down the edge of a razor. No mater which direction his body falls, he is dead.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned


Reasonable.

I think he is sliding down the edge of a razor. No mater which direction his body falls, he is dead.

It's not him I'm worried about. The average Iraqui isn't much different than you or I. Try imagining what it would be like trying to calm your neighbour down if their daughter had just been immolated by a fuel/air bomb.

It's just ugly.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's not him I'm worried about. The average Iraqui isn't much different than you or I. Try imagining what it would be like trying to calm your neighbour down if their daughter had just been immolated by a fuel/air bomb.

It's just ugly.

Agathon, We are not going to immolate civilians. That is what we are trying to prevent.

If you truly are in favor of human rights, of safety and security for families to raise their kids in peace, you will switch sides on this issue. Saddam is the killer. Unless he is removed, he will continue to kill.

(To me, it is simply unimaginable to have a ruler who is a murderer. But that is what Saddam is.)

[Kramerman]

EDIT: too sarcastic... I felt bad about it