An Unnecessary War? (Long)

[Arrian]

I've considered that, yes.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

but you said it did, which is what this is all about.

Sarcasm, che, sarcasm.

But they couldn't, could they. They couldn't put missiles in Cuba. They couldn't invade the Middle East during the various Arab-Israeli Wars. They couldn't send troops or MiGs to Nicaragua. The USSR was extremely constrained by the power of the US.

They could if they wanted to. In fact, Kruschev got EXACTLY what he wanted to out of Cuban Missle Crisis (nukes out of Turkey). Kennedy just decided he wanted to turn it into Apoclypse soon.

Russia never showed any inclination to invade the ME during the Arab-Israeli wars. They had enough radical Muslims, they didn't need any more. Especially ones that would challenge the government so much that the army would be preoccupied.

And Migs to Nicaragua would be as feasible as the US sending F-14s to Afghanistan (in the 70s).

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
I've considered that, yes.

-Arrian

[retarded conservative rant]
Well, I don't care if Osama wants us to attack Iraq. We can't be concerned about what the terrorists want, because if we do, the terrorists have won!
[/retarded conservative rant]

[Kramerman]

A lot of people don't seem to know anything about the history of the USSR and the reason they didn't simply go back to Moscow after pushing all the way to Berlin. Too much anti-communist propaganda is the cause...

didnt the Soviet Union promise to withdraw after the war? I may be miss remembering... as I do know Britain and the US did make concessions to the SU, I thought it was agreed at Potsdam conference that all European nations would have free elections after the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
At its height, the USSR had a GDP of about 2 trillion, it had over 200 million people, a space program, a huge fleet, so forth and so on. The USSR was a Superpower. Iraq has never been and will never be anyting greater than a local power. Iraq does not have the ability to stir rebellion anywhere, and I would add that while the USSR may have given aid, it never started a single damn rebellion: the Stalinist leadership was actually rebellion adverse (hence killing the real revolutionaries like trotsky) and never started anything. Revolutions abroad were begun by local revolutionaries with local beefs: had the US understood that back in 1950 it's life would have been much easier: it is ironic that someone with a 1950;s view of the USSR and its relation to international revolution could try to argue against a theory of deterence calling it '1950's arguments'.

THe article makes a clear point: anyone who argues for a war on Iraq based on lines of arguments that call Iraq a clear and present danger to the US today do so without much evidence or theory to back them. If you guys wish to seel a moralistic argument for war, go ahead, but stop making arguments that are baseless.

GePap, Let's be fair. The article calls for heavy US involvement is an open-ended containment effort. We are supposed to deter direct and indirect attacks IN THE REGION using our own Nukes. We are to threaten Iraq with total annihilation if they use WoMD on one of the states in the region.

But, is this really credible? Suppose Saddam again attacks Iran and opens by nuking Teheran. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran. Are we going to then nuke Baghdad?

I doubt it.

The article is very seriously flawed in concept. It is also flawed in many of its details.

[Sava]

Big deal Kramerman... like the US has been completely honest in its own foreign policy?

I'm not defending or justifying the SU's past policies. I'm simply pointing out that if someone is going to justify the US's violent foreign policy; the SU is no worse... in fact, the SU isn't responsible for creating the largest arsenal of nukes in the world... the SU isn't at the brink of starting a holy war with a billion Muslims... food for thought for Americans who think their sh1t don't stink...

[Sten Sture]

I actually think this is a good thread, and have succeeded in reading it in its entirety.

Che has some good points that the USSR's "involvement" in the east was not that different from the US's involvement in the west. We were both fighting for influence in a very nervous post-war world. I think we in the west are too quick to characterize all actions by the soviets as bad and all actions by the "freeworld" as good. Clearly Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the lack of pressure on France to give up it's colonial power in Indochina before Ho Chi Minh went crazy waiting for help, etc were suboptimal longterm strategies for the States United. I still think, that on balance the States are the good guys, but that is a separate issue.

The central issue in this Iraq'03 debate is certainly the potential response of Israel to Iraq securing a nuclear warhead. If you all recall the Israelis took out an Iraqi nuke reactor way back when to avoid this possibility and without question, the US fears this situation more than any other in the region. What would be the Israeli reaction to a Baghdad with a Nuke tipped Scud? Without question it would be a preemptive strike. If that strike succeeded or failed it wouldn't matter, it would potentially set back Arab/Israeli relations hundreds of years.

A nuclear exchange between Israel and Iraq could easily occur with horrifying shortterm and longterm consequences. This is the real risk. The US knows it, and knows that it must act as a proxy for Israel and preempt a real Armageddon. After Iraq'03 look for the States to insist that Israel stop pissing off (and on) the Pals. By the next time a ME state developes nukes, the Jews and Arabs had better be buddies.

[Ned]

Sten Sture, if you believe that Israel nuking Baghdad will set back US relations with the Arabs, what do you think would happen if WE nuked Baghdad.

But that is exactly what the article asks us to do.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

[Sten Sture]

Originally posted by Ned

This is complete and utter nonsense.

Absolutely. The last thing the States would ever do is nuke a city. Any city. Even if we had proof that the govt of that country nuked us. Period. We are a merchant country, and the world is our consumer - you do absolutely the least amount of damage required to get the job done. Hiroshima has cost us billions, we won't make that mistake again.

If we got nuked by Iraq, we would take over the entire country, capture as many responsible leaders as possible, try them for crimes against humanity and put them to death ourselves (not thru The Hague), maybe (slim) even battlefield (tactical) nuke a military instalation - but no cities. Ever. The long term indirect commercial losses and onsite clean-up costs are way too high.

[chequita guevara]

If Iraq nuked us, we would retaliate in kind. We are a vengeful nation. No President would survive an election he let a nuke go without a proportional response.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sten Sture



Absolutely. The last thing the States would ever do is nuke a city. Any city. Even if we had proof that the govt of that country nuked us. Period. We are a merchant country, and the world is our consumer - you do absolutely the least amount of damage required to get the job done. Hiroshima has cost us billions, we won't make that mistake again.

If we got nuked by Iraq, we would take over the entire country, capture as many responsible leaders as possible, try them for crimes against humanity and put them to death ourselves (not thru The Hague), maybe (slim) even battlefield (tactical) nuke a military instalation - but no cities. Ever. The long term indirect commercial losses and onsite clean-up costs are way too high.

Your reasoning is profound. But the result you reach is correct.

BTW, I also had serious doubts that the US would nuke Moscow if, for example, the Soviets nuked a European city. That would invite retaliation on the US.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If Iraq nuked us, we would retaliate in kind. We are a vengeful nation. No President would survive an election he let a nuke go without a proportional response.

Che, again, let us stick to the facts. The article calls for US containment of Iraq in the ME. If he nukes Teheran, do we nuke Baghdad? That is the question on the table.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


Your reasoning is profound. But the result you reach is correct.

BTW, I also had serious doubts that the US would nuke Moscow if, for example, the Soviets nuked a European city. That would invite retaliation on the US.

which is why it is a good job the UK had its own nukes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


which is why it is a good job the UK had its own nukes.

Which is WHY the article is seriously, seriously FLAWED in basic concept.

The Japanese and South Koreans face the same problem now with North Korea.

[Garth Vader]

BTW, I also had serious doubts that the US would nuke Moscow if, for example, the Soviets nuked a European city. That would invite retaliation on the US.

Wasn't it US policy during the Cold War to nuke the Soviets even if they attacked Europe conventionally? Or if they had tried to take the Mid East conventionally?

You can't answer whether the US would have actually followed through, but yet it worked.

So to answer your question(sort of), the idea is that the threat of nuclear attack would be enough to keep Iraq from even nuking Tehran.