Did we score a victory?

[DanS]

Saying "we don't know if it's worked" is really carte blanche to invade anyone - we don't know if they're a future threat.

Well, it's reality.

[Drake Tungsten]

Two years or so, and he'll be able to deliver those warheads to LA, maybe to the entire US, unless we find a way to derail him.

No ****. But how are you going to stop him? Give me one palatable way of stopping them...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once. That little tiff with Iran was Iran's fault (assassinations and trying to start a revolt really piss of most countries), and the US, UK and Arab world agreed.

We do know that since the invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's ass thumping, his military is still weaker than it was pre-invasion, his neighbors are stronger, and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it.

Saddam had the opportunity to hit Israel with WMD's the first time around, but he didn't. He tried to get an Israeli response to drive a wedge in the arab coalition against him, it didn't work, but he wasn't crazy enough to launch a chemical warhead against Israel, because he could figure the consequences.

Saddamn is trained in the Soviet mold, and we held those bastards in check for decades, until they imploded. There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost.

Saying "we don't know if it's worked" is really carte blanche to invade anyone - we don't know if they're a future threat.

Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once.

Yeah, despite mass murder internally, he has only really tried mass murder internationally once. This is a justification to leave him in power?



and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it.

Not True! He has since started to mass troops on the Kuwati boarder and only a quick response of US troop movements stopped him.

There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost.

Lower Cost? How much do you think that the world has spent on "containing" Saddam during the last 12 years? Also, the fact that he has been "contained" is dubious. When his son in law that defected detailed his bio and chem programs I would doubt that anyone felt that he was "contained"

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bull****. At this point, it's not even clear how many nations (if any) besides the US, UK and Australia will even participate militarily, let alone contribute to the enormous financial costs. A bunch of small countries saying "go get 'em, tiger!" in return for military aid packages is not exactly "taking action." The burden for this one falls right on the US, and more than half the ground combat capability, half the naval aviation assets, and 3/4 of the US Marine Corps' combat capability is being tied up in the process.

True that the bulk of the burden militarily falls to the US, but so what? We are the only ones capable of projecting that force. Additionally, are you stating that all these countries that are supporting action would be against it if not for US aid? Is Saddam that great a guy? It is much more probable that there are many like minded leaders to the US position than the "keep Saddam in power" crowd would like to admit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If the US wasn't the driver for it, I suspect almost all of them (except the UK) wouldn't care very much at all. For most countries in the world, other than in the ME, Iraq and Hussein are a pretty low policy priority.

It's not that Saddam's a nice guy, or has many friends, it's that most countries have bigger fish to fry closer to home, whether in domestic policy or foreign policy.

The Macchiavellian in me suspects strongly that most of these countries read that the US was going to act regardless, and they had nothing to gain and perhaps something to lose, by not supporting the US position, and something to gain by supporting the US position. I'm sure most of these nations see the issue vis-a-vis their relations with the US far more than they see it as the proximity of the Iraqi threat to themselves.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If the US wasn't the driver for it, I suspect almost all of them (except the UK) wouldn't care very much at all. For most countries in the world, other than in the ME, Iraq and Hussein are a pretty low policy priority.

It's not that Saddam's a nice guy, or has many friends, it's that most countries have bigger fish to fry closer to home, whether in domestic policy or foreign policy.

The Macchiavellian in me suspects strongly that most of these countries read that the US was going to act regardless, and they had nothing to gain and perhaps something to lose, by not supporting the US position, and something to gain by supporting the US position. I'm sure most of these nations see the issue vis-a-vis their relations with the US far more than they see it as the proximity of the Iraqi threat to themselves.

While you are probably correct in some instances, I believe that many countries have leaders of principal. They believe that this is the right thing to do. Do they have bigger fish closer to home? Almost certainly. Does that make this any less of a principaled decision? Probably not. I would also put forth that some want a precedant set that would apply in their neighborhood should an Iraqi type regime emerge.

[DarthVeda]

bahahahaha... yah war!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once.

Yeah, despite mass murder internally, he has only really tried mass murder internationally once. This is a justification to leave him in power?

Normally, we don't get worked about mass murder - we didn't in Rwanda, we didn't in Iraq at the time we were supporting Hussein. How much noise was made about Halabja at the time it happened, and by whom?

and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it.

Not True! He has since started to mass troops on the Kuwati boarder and only a quick response of US troop movements stopped him.

This is why I said "very hard." During the cold war, the US and USSR tested each other directly and through proxies numerous times on land, sea and air.

There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost.

Lower Cost? How much do you think that the world has spent on "containing" Saddam during the last 12 years? Also, the fact that he has been "contained" is dubious. When his son in law that defected detailed his bio and chem programs I would doubt that anyone felt that he was "contained"

Not counting the gulf war itself, quite a bit less than the current global economic impact from the run up of oil prices on the global market as this conflict has developed, and certainly less than the 100 billion or so pricetag estimated for this one.

As to defectors, intelligence agencies have traditionally had a jaded view of info provided by them, because defectors tend to need to make themselves valuable.

I have no doubt Hussein has significant BCW programs even now - as do a lot of other nations. IMO, containment means deterring him from using them externally, or from attacking his neighbors. Beyond that, he's a regional problem, not a global one, and not one with a big enough impact on US security to bother with at this time, with this economy, with this level of military force available, and with other threats that require our attention and resources.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
While you are probably correct in some instances, I believe that many countries have leaders of principal. They believe that this is the right thing to do. Do they have bigger fish closer to home? Almost certainly. Does that make this any less of a principaled decision? Probably not. I would also put forth that some want a precedant set that would apply in their neighborhood should an Iraqi type regime emerge.

The only principle I believe exists in national leaders and foreign ministers is the principal of perceived self-interest. Most anything can be sold, or sold out, or bought off, if there is a perceived advantage for it. Sometimes that self-interest is national, sometimes it is as simple as getting re-elected or creating a legacy. Actually doing things on the basis of higher principles? I expect that most countries' political systems weed out such types before they get to national office.

[DinoDoc]

Why don't we ever see more Democrats like you, MtG? It might actually make for an interesting election if people of your ilk were in the Dem. primary

[MichaeltheGreat]

Because I'm out on a listening post about 100 meters past the far right flank of the Democratic Party, as it's currently constituted.

Somehow, touchy-feeliness got to be all in fashion in the local party organizations, so the only chance in hell I'd have of running successfully anywhere would be back in Kentucky or Virginia.

Trouble is, to run from there, I'd have to move there, and even if I ran for anything and won, being a centrist southern Democrat is really a pretty isolated political position nowadays.

Bush is actually about the only thing right now that keeps me from considering switching party affiliation, unless the Dems really pull off some sort of miracle and transform themselves as a party.

[DinoDoc]

Bush is actually about the only thing right now that keeps me from considering switching party affiliation,

Never thought that I'd hear those words come from a "Blue Dog" Democrat such as yourself.

How would you rate Zell Miller?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Overall, favorably, but I differ with some of his positions (though not that many or that much) on security and on his support of the Iraq war.

I do think it is refreshing though, to see an actual live southern Democrat - they're somewhat of an endangered species.

Besides, I only said "considering switching"

[Drake Tungsten]

To bring it all full circle...

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Did we score a victory?

No.

So, Bush has had to back off his plans of imminent invasion in order to save the political career of his ally, Blair. Score one for the good guys. Democracy in action, yahoo!

So, now we need to go into overdrive. We've made them falter, now we have to knock them out.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Because I'm out on a listening post about 100 meters past the far right flank of the Democratic Party, as it's currently constituted.

Somehow, touchy-feeliness got to be all in fashion in the local party organizations, so the only chance in hell I'd have of running successfully anywhere would be back in Kentucky or Virginia.

Trouble is, to run from there, I'd have to move there, and even if I ran for anything and won, being a centrist southern Democrat is really a pretty isolated political position nowadays.

Bush is actually about the only thing right now that keeps me from considering switching party affiliation, unless the Dems really pull off some sort of miracle and transform themselves as a party.

I have been an independant for many years. I cannot stand either party. I think the Republicans have hijacked the conservative label and they certainly do not represent my view of a conservative form of government. As for the Democrats, I'd sooner be dead than join their clan.