Did the UN fail?

[GePap]

Is that so hard to understand? The guy's a bully. He pushes people around. Those under him, and other nations if he thinks he can get away with it.

And when would he have felt that he could get away with anything anymore?

Even using you simplistic standard, this is the question that matters: when will he have felt that he could attack his weaker neighbors and get away with it?

In short, what you argue is that deterrence would not give him the message that if he ever attacked anyone again, he was toast..that for some reasons you have yet to enumerate containment would be unable to stop him form acting and thus he had to be removed, as far as the agurment that he was a threat to the region was concerned.
I argue that containement had shown him that his only worthwhile avenue of territorial expansion was permenantly closed.

To finish off with you "bully"argument: how does one stop a bully? One stand up to them..well, we did just that in 1991. We stood up to the bully and beat the crap out of him. And for 12 years he never did anyting again. You argued that standing up to the bully was not enough, that we had to get rid of he bully completely. This is what you have failed to argue convincingly, if at all.

[Velociryx]

Nope...we've already covered that ground.

Since it was the US who was footing the bill for your much vaunted containment, it was the US who decides when to pull the plug.

The US was damaging its own diplomacy by continuing the policy of containment. With the problem gone, our troops can go HOME. But that's pretty complex too.....

To continue the bully argument: Yes, we beat the crap out of him, and the REASON he never did anything to anyone again is cos we had one shoe poised and pointed right at his arse, ready to shove it in deep if he tried.

But, we were the only ones footing the bill to keep that shoe there. Nobody could be arsed to give a hand, though they all lined up in the UN to whine about it.

Our money. Our boys. Our material keeping him at bay.

Our call when to change plans.

The complexity is astounding.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

GePap, I agree that simply being a dictator does not mean that that dictator will always invade his neighbors. I think one reason for this is that they know the potential consequences and want to avoid them. One of potential consequence is that the US may intervene. This is one of the reasons we never saw Cuban troops actively involved in the Americas even while they were actively involved in Africa.

Saddam was careful in his invasions. He invaded Iran after Iran lost the protection of the US. He invaded Kuwait when Bush I's administration several times signalled Saddam that the US would not intervene.

Since we knew that part of the fault of the Gulf War lay in our own poor signalling, we possibly did not insist that Saddam be removed in '91 thinking he was somewhat rational and was not really prepared to challenge the US. But, when he later tried to assassinate Bush I and then twarted the WoMD inspections, we knew we had a very dangerous dictator on our hands who was now out to get us.

[GePap]

But, we were the only ones footing the bill to keep that shoe there. Nobody could be arsed to give a hand, though they all lined up in the UN to whine about it.

Our money. Our boys. Our material keeping him at bay.

Our call when to change plans.

Oh Lord....

We have spent more this month of war than we spent on containment, far, far more.

The US was damaging its own diplomacy by continuing the policy of containment. With the problem gone, our troops can go HOME. But that's pretty complex too.....

Oh, you mean trade having 10,000 troops there for several years for 100,000 troops for a couple of years, yeah, wonderful.... Oh, but I forgot, we aren't going to get rid of our bases in the gulf even after this war..woops, your bad.

You know, I would continue arguing, but honestly, you seem to honestly believe what you say, so basically to continue with you would be a fine example of and I don't have the patience for it.

[gsmoove23]

GePap you're losing your traditional cool and its fun to watch.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hey...I liked yours! I'll be curious to see what other interpretations come along...

-=Vel=-

Gepap is an alien, Vel is a Space warrior, and the dog is an intergalactic spaceship... oh yeah! the story makes perfect sense

[Kramerman]

Master zen

What you are doing is simply ignoring all that the UN has done well, and just mentioning it's failures.

sounds like many an opinion of the US of A, hmmm?

[Velociryx]

Okay, GePap....since you insist on making this a complex equation, I'll spell it out for you:

Yes. We increase the short term presence and cost of forces in the region for the long term benefit of minimizing our presence in the region.

In case you were not aware, one cannot maintain a forceful presence in a given region (say....forceful enough to make containment work) while at the same time, minimize military presence in that region. The two goals are rather at odds with each other, wouldn't you agree?

If we continue on the path of containment, then that means keeping the no fly zones, and keeping enough forces in the neighborhood to pose a credible threat to Saddam until the time of his natural death, through the complete reigns of his children, and until such time as a fundamental change in regieme could be effected by natural or revolutionary means. That's a long time. Add up the sum total cost of maintaining the "containment force" for the 3-4 generations we're talking about, and it positively dwarfs the war.

On the matter of our damaged diplomacy. Minimizing our presence in the region does not necessarily mean giving up our bases, it means minimizing our presence there. We can still maintain a token presence at a couple of bases if we want/need to, and keep a low enough profile that it'd not be damaging diplomatically. Can you see how that might be in any way different from maintaining a highly visible presence in the region by continuing naval patrols and no-fly zones? Any difference at all? Yeah? VERY good sign!

And you're right on another point, as well. I honestly, honestly believe that this stuff is not rocket science. Saddam is a pretty predictable fellow, at the end of the day, despite your claims to the contrary.

Our actions in the ME are pretty predictable responses, despite your claims of a deeply rooted mystery here.

-=Vel=-

[Kramerman]

Why not? He had a gun, as you claim, hell, Syria is a neighbor, and he has some pathological urge to invade people

i have not read anything about y'alls discussion, but just caught this.

- perhaps Syria is not an enemy or profitable target

- perhaps saddam felt his regular forces were not strong enough yet to ingage in a war.

- perhaps Saddam felt he hadn't yet the capacity in WoMD to hold a coalition at bay while he occupies his victim

[Ned]

Regardless of whether the UN failed, doesn't anyone find it totally remarkable that Saddam deliberately chose to fight the United States rather than capitulated to 1441 or to our last minute ultimatum?

[Velociryx]

I don't. The guy has been sniffing the glue of his own lies for so long, he believe them!

Despite the can of whoop-a$$ we opened up on him 12 years ago, he actually thought he could win against us if he made us fight street to street (note, that's how his best troops were arrayed, to force us to fight them up close and personal)....the rest was just a dog and pony show.

The guy's off his rocker.

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Backlash by the peoples? Hah! We all know the communist party was probably behind those demonstrations.

the democratic charter was signed last year or in 2001 at the earliest! What communist party?!?!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kramerman


i have not read anything about y'alls discussion, but just caught this.

- perhaps Syria is not an enemy or profitable target

- perhaps saddam felt his regular forces were not strong enough yet to ingage in a war.

- perhaps Saddam felt he hadn't yet the capacity in WoMD to hold a coalition at bay while he occupies his victim

Syria became his ally. Turkey was and is a NATO ally. Jordan was also his friend and ally. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were enemies.

Saddam's problem was US protection of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He therefor directed his diplomacy, such as it was, in trying to get us to leave. Once we were gone and our relations with these two countries were at a very low levels, you can be assured that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would become part of greater Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


the democratic charter was signed last year or in 2001 at the earliest! What communist party?!?!

Don't be naive.

[GePap]

How does one minimize our precense in the region by invading a state? The fact is that for many more years our precense in the gulf will be the biggest it has ever been.

If we continue on the path of containment, then that means keeping the no fly zones, and keeping enough forces in the neighborhood to pose a credible threat to Saddam until the time of his natural death, through the complete reins of his children, and until such time as a fundamental change in regieme could be effected by natural or revolutionary means. That's a long time. Add up the sum total cost of maintaining the "containment force" for the 3-4 generations we're talking about, and it positively dwarfs the war.

first: only the nothern no-flight zone actually dettered Saddam, and that was dettering him from attacking the Kurdish areas. The southern one did nothing to detter Saddam from terrorizing Shia, and it could have been cancelled without any serious practical matter. pOlitically an admin. wuld have taken a hit, but practically, it would make no difference.

Second, you seem to assume that his children would have similar aims as the father, which you can't prove, nor could you even prove that his children would get to power without problems, specially since they were hated more than the father was.

If the US concluded binding defense pacts with SA and Kuwait then it could pull land forces ou of the region and do the job with the naval assest we are likely to keep in the gulf indefinitelly now. I believe we neevr did because of the political consequences of overt treaties with SA and Kuwait.

And you're right on another point, as well. I honestly, honestly believe that this stuff is not rocket science. Saddam is a pretty predictable fellow, at the end of the day, despite your claims to the contrary.

Did you ever predict any of what he did? Did you predict everything he did, and did not do, during this war?