Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: majic on August 10, 2002, 03:48:59 PM
-
I've been torn on this issue for a while and was wondering what people thought about it. Why should we or shouldn't we? If you have any helpful links, please post them as well. DISCUSS.
-
I'll take a shot at it.
We should not.
Saddam Hussein is a 6 foot tall turd. A waste of humanity. A burden to his people. A threat to his neighbors. A blight on US foreign Policy.
But until we can make a case before the world that we have adiquate cause to remove him from power, I do not think that we should. If you want to talk about further funding (since we are already spending tax dollars on this) Iraqi oppostion groups, then I'm for it. If evidence surfaces that connects Al Quada to Iraq, or Iraq to nuclear weapons, then I'm for military intervention. But as of yet, we have not seen any such intelligence. It is entirely possible that it exists, and is being held by the Administration (and possibly, but give the leakage not likely, the congress). But that evidence will need to be presented to our key allies (Nato, perhaps some of the moderate gulf states) in order for us to move forward on that.
I have a very conservative foreign policy outlook. I'm a big believer in power politics and the deterrence model. However, (and this is where I deviate from my conservative cohorts) I believe that our actions should be tempered by the opinions of our allies. When Germany says "no thank you" to participating in any operations, I don't think of it as "You Yanks are on your own, thanks for the Marshall plan, but kiss my ass!" I think of it as "Whoa, buddy, don't you think you've had enough to drink?" I mean, when the Brits are saying "Dude, give me the keys" I think it's time to pay attention. I'm not saying that every time we want to act, we have to ask Djibuti how they feel about it, but I do think that we need to consider our actions long and hard when, for example the Brits and the Germans don't agree. (I don't worry too much about the French and the Russians when it comes to Iraq though. I belive that there are money issues there that will forever keep our views apart there).
Also, If we were to take out Saddam, I would personally like to see us stick around and help build a democratic regime in his place. It will be one of the most difficult undertakings we've ever pursued, but if we choose to let them swing in the wind, then I don't see why we would do this. I don't believe that any autocratic ruler stuck between Iran (with an active nuclear program) and Israel (with an actual nuclear arsenal) would choose to not pursue nuclear weapons on their own without substantial security garuntees from the US, and I don't think that we are prepared to provide that (although I could be wrong, but then if we would enter into sucn an agreement, why not spend the time money and effort trying to build a democracy?)
In closing (and I know I'm rambling here) I think that there are too many unanswered questions right now. What makes Iraq more important for regime change than say, Myanmar or Pakistan? Will the US be able to get support from at LEAST the UK? What happens after Saddam is in a box? Once we have a few more of these (and of course "we" the public won't even know until after-the-fact, unless we present the evidence to the Security Council, A-la the Cuban Missile Crisis") then I will reasses my position.
-Sikboy
-
While Iraq's Hussein has to go. I'm betting the real deal is Oil. Millions of people have died for Oil and im betting Millions of people will again.
-
"Millions of people have died for Oil and im betting Millions of people will again."
:eek:
Millions? Who killed these millions, which war? Did you hear this on a college campus?
-
The issue of whether it is a good idea to bump off Hussein is way above my head. But today someone told me that in his opinion attacking a sovereign nation which hadn't attacked us should be out of the question. I don't think this guy's analysis went quite deep enough. Iraq attacked a sovereign nation and then lost the subsequent war. They then agreed to peace terms which required, amongst other things, foreign inspectors snooping around looking for evidence of development of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein allowed the inspections for a while, then threw out the inspectors, in violation of his peace deal. Then there's the matter of trying to assassinate the ex-president of the US in 1993. So Iraq's sovereignty is already tattered and torn.
The mid-east is exporting all sorts of violence and instability around the world, and Hussein's regime is one of the sources of these exports. He uses the instability of the area to his favor. Maybe he has nothing to do with 9/11, but you can bet that if he could have helped the 9/11 terrorists he would have.
-
This is yet another failure of the Clinton administration. When the UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq the war should have started all over again and ended in either the UN inspectors back at work in Iraq -or- a regime change. Instead Clinton used it to deflect media from his impeachment. Let's not forget he was impeached :)
Iraq attacked a sovereign nation and then lost the subsequent war. They then agreed to peace terms which required, amongst other things, foreign inspectors snooping around looking for evidence of development of weapons of mass destruction
That right there should be the ONLY reason we need, period. Without factoring in all the other crap that he has done or is trying to do.
-
Why? Because nobody else has the will or means to do it. Their only solution is to kiss his arse and squeak about our actions in public while behind the camera impatiently waiting for us to clean up the mess AGAIN.
-
The college Campus! LOL Yah, your a riot....no...really.
WW1, WW2, All the little Arabic Wars, little places like Papua New Guinea, etc etc.
Small wars, Large wars. Wars you never hear about. Oil. Oil companies dont give a hoot who goes in the process. Vested American interests shrouded in Oil profits. European, Arabic, Eastern. Oil is always in there somewhere.
Thats all that this is about. Vested interest in the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"Millions of people have died for Oil and im betting Millions of people will again."
:eek:
Millions? Who killed these millions, which war? Did you hear this on a college campus?
geez grunherz, guess you havent seen the documentary titled "The Road Warrior."
:D
-
<<>>
Please explain how WWI, WWII, and 'all the little Arabic wars' were about oil. The mid east wasn't even a major source of oil until well after WWII.
<<>>
So all wars are caused by US oil companies? Life is very simple to you.
Oil is a strategic material, nothing more, nothing less. It will play a roll in any large war.
A gallon of gasoline (refined oil) costs less than a gallon of Perrier, and it would be much cheaper were it not for taxes and market manipulation. One day, probably in our lifetimes, oil will be nearly worthless as some other cost effective source of energy will be found to power our vehicles.
-
a RW hero explains why we should attack iraq:
Herman Goering, Germany 1930's.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country
-
We want saddams women...
" ey, sadaam... 'ow much fer de women?? is dat yer lil girl?? very cute. how much you want for her??"
..and his goats.
oh yes. his goats.
"how much for the leeetel goats, saadam, eh?"
"naaaaaaaaaahhhh"
ah, yes. shes a cute one, ey?
-
Umm, kg45, did you have a point?
RW = right wingers? Look, you wanna attack some political party, or other group, go do it in anther thread. I was asking about why or why not the U.S. should go into Iraq.
-
Originally posted by majic
Umm, kg45, did you have a point?
RW = right wingers? Look, you wanna attack some political party, or other group, go do it in anther thread. I was asking about why or why not the U.S. should go into Iraq.
majic i suggest you calm down. And yes he did have a point, and it is painfully obvious. (made more obvious by your kneejerk defensive response. )
you pose a vague and and obscure question, then ask for peoples opinions and thoughts, then cry when they dont match your own feelings.
Then you go so far to arbitrarily interpret acronyms...RW? damn that could mean anything. I myself think "ringworm" would be good.
I believe whole hearted in KG45's last paragraph and see the proof and truth in what he says in your own words.
:rolleyes:
-
Not to take the other side's point of view, 'cause I think we should kick Saddam's bellybutton just for jollies and general principles,...
BUT
Japan was headed for Indonesia because Indonesia had petroleum reserves that Japan Lacks. The USA, which was a net exporter at the time, shut off the petroleum supply to Japan, due the Japanese military doing interesting things in China.
They invaded China to secure mineral resourses, among other reasons.
Germany took over Rumania due to Ploesti oil feilds.
Petroleum was a major factor in WW2, and in Japan's case, possibly a primary factor.
spelling edit
-
Middle East Oil
http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/siuhin_oil-war.cfm
The Macedonian point of view
http://news1.beograd.com/english/articles_and_opinion/djurdjevic/090601_Macedonia_Another_Farcical_American_Oil_War.html
The Sudan
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0103suda/sudanoil.htm
The War on Terrorism
http://www.ucan.org/law_policy/energydocs/oilwaredit.htm
Columbia
http://www.globalizaction.org/ColombiaOil.htm
American Interests? Click on the War on Oil link in the Downloads section. (requires Adobe)
http://www.war-times.org/
I could go on..All the way back to Rudyard Kipling and the first Afghan War if you desire. But so can you. Its all documented, Fact AND fiction somewhere on the net.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"Millions of people have died for Oil and im betting Millions of people will again."
:eek:
Millions? Who killed these millions, which war? Did you hear this on a college campus?
The Japanese went to war over oil, that caused the odd causualty I heard...Mind you I learn't that at High School.
Tronsky
-
"majic i suggest you calm down. And yes he did have a point, and it is painfully obvious. (made more obvious by your kneejerk defensive response. )
you pose a vague and and obscure question, then ask for peoples opinions and thoughts, then cry when they dont match your own feelings.
Then you go so far to arbitrarily interpret acronyms...RW? damn that could mean anything. I myself think "ringworm" would be good.
I believe whole hearted in KG45's last paragraph and see the proof and truth in what he says in your own words. "
Sorry if my earlier response sounded harsh. That was not the intention. I am interested in arguments for or against going into Iraq. What kg45 posted contained no argument conerning that and instead likened our government to NAZI's. Perhaps what he said wuld have been valid if he could have brought up an argument saying we (the people) were in fact in no danger from Iraq. Fair 'nuff?
-
"The Japanese went to war over oil, that caused the odd causualty I heard...Mind you I learn't that at High School. "
I disagree. Japan went to war to take a step up on the world stage. (Remember the Co-Prosperity Sphere?) Oil was just one of the things they needed to accomplish this. Territory and subjugated populations were some others. (Oil was just one of the things the Germans needed to complete their goals too.)
The Gulf War probably had more to do with oil than any other war. Iraq wanted Kuwait's oil (simple version). We defended Kuwait because they were important to our oil interests. Saudi Arabia cooperated to protect their own oil.
-
Spook: Doesn't it bother you that most all of those articles contain no documentation of sources? They are scary if true, but it's hard to take them at face value. I do, however, agree with one point made in the 4th link. We do need to hunt down a new energy source and lose our dependance on oil. (Your second link was a dead link- btw.)
-
Why? Because nobody else has the will or means to do it. Their only solution is to kiss his arse and squeak about our actions in public while behind the camera impatiently waiting for us to clean up the mess AGAIN.
Awwww. Poor old little US of A. Keeps its nose clean but still gets given the crappy jobs.
roadkill. Some information for you:
The US and its Allies supported and propped up Saddam's regime for decades and helped him fight a war against Iran. This included turning a blind eye to his dirty internal dealings, his elimnation of political opponents and his oppression of dissident groups. They gave money, military training etc. Britain nearly sold him a gun capable of launching projectiles over hundreds of miles. He was the West's pet in the middle East.
With the end of the cold war, he became expendable to the point of becoming a liability. His sabre rattling and threats against neighbours threatened oil supplies and hence, when he invaded Kuwait conflict was inevitable.
So don't pretend this is not the US's problem simply because the problem originates outside of US borders. You created the situation as much as anyone else, and arguably have more responsibility for Saddam's continued rule than any other Western democracy.
-
So Dowding, you're saying you support the terrorists then?
Sorry...just wanted to be the first.
-
I don't know if millions died in the Pacific War, but oil was the driving factor on the Japanese side. Check the following excerpt from "Midway-- The Battle That Doomed Japan" by Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya that describes the reasoning behind the Japanese decision to go to war.
Ever since Japan, dazzled by German victories in Europe, had concluded the military alliance with the Axis, the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands had applied increasing economic pressure against her. When Japanese troops moved into southern Indochina in July 1941, the three powers struck back with their most damaging blow to date -- a concerted embargo on oil exports to Japan.
The cutting off of oil supplies hit the navy at its most vulnerable spot. Its reserve of 6,450,000 tons diminished daily, and, even with the strictest economy, would be exhausted in three or four years at the most. Since without oil the Japanese fighting services would become powerless, Japan would be reduced to a situation in which she would have to bow to any and all demands by the Anglo-American camp.
It had been hoped, when Japanese-American negotiations were begun in the spring of 1941, that a peaceful solution might be found. But as the talks dragged on with no apparent hope of achieving a mutually acceptable agreement, the war faction pointed to the disastrous effects of the oil embargo and declared that Japan must either take up arms before it was too late or else reconcile herself to eventual complete capitualiation.
-
Originally posted by majic
Iraq (why should we attack?)
Why not?
-
Lance: their primary reason for striking the U.S. and Britain was because our oil embargo, but keep in mind they were already at war in China at that point. The goal of that conflict was to become the preiminent power in that region, oil was something they needed to do that, but not the end goal. (they also needed many other raw materials.)
-
Dowding,
What was that little stroll called the Falklands all about?
Yeah....we all do it, don't we.
For the record, I don't think we should dodge the responsibility we had of propping him up in the past. I also think our allies should too. Then of course we all would have to deal with him together to get rid of him too....That would mean acting like, well....Allies. Much as we did in '91, even then it was difficult.
Of course it wouldn't be a pot-shot at the US thread without Thrawn :rolleyes:
Cobra
-
Oh, I agree, Majic. There is no doubt that you can boil that need for oil down to the more basic motivation of wanting to be the dominant power in the region -- but the implication above from others was that oil was not a major factor in a governments decision to go to war, when clearly it was in Japan's case.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
...So don't pretend this is not the US's problem simply because the problem originates outside of US borders. You created the situation as much as anyone else, and arguably have more responsibility for Saddam's continued rule than any other Western democracy.
So it's OK with you then if we go clean up this problem then? :)
-
old joke about Saddam thought some may use it later.
Saddam is sitting at table having a coffe reading the US today newspaper. Headlines read " Saddam Hussin Biggest prettythanghole in world". He turns to his wife and says Honey do you think i'm biggest ahole in world. Well she knows if she answers he will kill her. so she says why don't you ask your magic mirror on the wall in your bedroom. so he goes in bedroom and says mirror on the wall am i the biggest prettythanghole of all? His wife can't hear the answer but he comes out with a dumbfounded look on his face and turns to her and asked" who in the %!#^!^ is IEN"
-
Thrawn - ;)
Do what, Cobra? Protect our own territory, populated by our own citizens, containing our resources? I believe that was what the Falklands War was mostly about.
It's nothing like Iraq/Kuwait - or do you claim sovereignty over those regions?
If you don't mind me saying, Your response is of the typical, blindly defensive "How dare you criticise US foreign policy" ilk. Frankly, I'll criticise all I like - and get this - I'll even criticise my own government! Now there's a thing!
Toad - you won't do it alone. You can't do it alone.
I want Saddam gone as much as the next man. But where are the plans to build a nation afterwards? Who's going to ensure the political vacuum is filled by a democratic system?
Frankly, the US has had as much success in nation building as my old mum. :D
-
LOL !
-
Originally posted by majic
"The Japanese went to war over oil, that caused the odd causualty I heard...Mind you I learn't that at High School. "
I disagree. Japan went to war to take a step up on the world stage. (Remember the Co-Prosperity Sphere?) Oil was just one of the things they needed to accomplish this. Territory and subjugated populations were some others. (Oil was just one of the things the Germans needed to complete their goals too.)
The Gulf War probably had more to do with oil than any other war. Iraq wanted Kuwait's oil (simple version). We defended Kuwait because they were important to our oil interests. Saudi Arabia cooperated to protect their own oil.
The gulf war is a gimme, but I would still argue that the Oil embargo was the primary reason behind the attack on Pearl. The drive down to the dutch oil fields was the primary objectives in the intial japanese offensive. Before the embargo the Japanese military only concerned themselves mostly with carving out their empire in Korean, and Manchuria.
I did consider the German offensives in the south of Russia, but Oil wasn't the primary reason of Barbarossa.
Tronsky
-
Don't kid yourself. We can do it alone.
Nation building? Well, step one is remove Hussein. Did you notice the Iraqi opposition groups leader's are meeting here? BTW, give me an example of some Nation that is perfect at "nation building", please.
-
Dowding,
I do mind you saying, thank you very much.
And your "justification" for the Falklands is a lonnnggg stretch at best, and at the very least hypocritical. That whole colonial thing and all. Your "claim" of sovereignity is a throwback to that now isn't it. Your claim to protect her majesty's sheep was the thin legal justification for making sure you could keep those oil reserves.
Of course, the fact that we went in to "liberate" Kuwait from an unwanted occupying force is different then your colony agruement, may even hold more water. (I used liberate in quotes on purpose as I recognize the only thing we wanted to liberate was the oil fields, but that action still holds more legitimacy the defending our sovereign soil bullocks).
And if you READ my response, I agreed with you about the US and it's European allies owning up to it's role with regards to Iraq.
Of course I'll criticize as I like, I never stated that you couldn't either, so why the huffing and puffing? Criticize the US foreign policy all you like, hell I do!...Just don't get YOUR panties in a wad if I criticize your government's actions as well.
I do get a kick out of the self-righteous indignation though.
Cobra
-
war/ground troops - no
a couple of smart bombs on the right target when Intel says he's there - yes.
cut the head of the snake off, then continue to beat it with a stick when they get out of line. I don't see a need for troops or anything other than laser guided munitions and a few laser aimers.
-
Hmm Cobra. At which point in my very first post did I say a war for oil was not justified? I suggest you READ it again (I put that in capitals just for you). While you're at it why don't you READ my last post, in which I said the Falklands war was fought for the resources of the islands. Strangely, I'm of the opinion oil is a resource... sorry about that.
While we are on the subject of Falklands, it is not some colony consisting of a majority of natives and a small British elite. It's almost completely British with no native population. It is more comparable to the Orkney Isles than India and the Raj.
Toad - and from where will you launch this solo assault?
You need bases, ergo you need allies. Like I said before, you cannot do it alone.
So step one is remove Hussein. Step two is err... ask the UN to step in! You know, that organisation who most Americans seem to distrust absolutely until they need them to go police some hellhole.
I'm sceptical of any one nation's ability to 'create' a new country anywhere in the world, nevermind the Middle East.
-
Easy! To quote Mallory: "Why? Because it's there!"
answering the question posed by thread itself
Masher
-
Solution??
Nuke Paris.
Think about it.
;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
So step one is remove Hussein. Step two is err... ask the UN to step in!
I think that asking what step two is, is one of the most important questions there is in deceiding what our course of action is to be. I don't think that inviting the UN over to the party would be the best move. I know you were being sarcastic, however, I think that for "Peacekeeping" functions, the US would like to maintain as much autonomy as possible, and that will be considerably easier without UN troops. As far as democratization goes, I would invited election monitors from the OSCE before the UN. While this clearly would fall far from the auspices of the OSCE, I've come to trust their abilities in election monitoring.
But the question of "what comes next" still looms large, if not on this board, in the National Securit Council. I think the first step in answering this question, is to look at the obstacles for democratic reform, as they have been studied in the past. I have three favorites myself. The first is from Samnual Huntington, he suggests that, while there are obvious exceptions to the rule, Economic well being is a clear indicator of democratic possiblity. With a per-capita GNP of 1900 dollars (in 1994 figures, it was all I could find on short notice, and may be more reflective of possible economic conditions, as the embargo had less of an effect back then) Iraq falls clearley within Huntingtons "Political Transition Window" (between $1000-$3300)
Of course, if you look at most of the Middle east, you can get numbers within that range, and yet there are no democracies around (no, for the 100th time, I don't count Iran.) So I turn to Tatu Vanhanen to help expain this. Vanhanen contends that raw GNP numbers do not give us a clear picture, and that no matter how rich a nation is, it will not foster democracy unless the power within the nation (generally with regard to economic power and education) is distributed among a wide portion of the population. This, to me, is reflective of the need for a strong middle class to foster democracy. But that is my own conclusion, not Vanhanens. Iraq, to my knowledge does not have a wide power base in any of the senses advocated by Vanhanen (and if you are interested in the formula's he uses, check out this longwinded paper on democracy in the Caucuses (http://home.earthlink.net/~acesarz3/papers/democac.htm) )
The final piece of the puzzle that I like to use, is "A Sense of national Unity" This was suggested by Freedom house International (I believe I posted a link to their website in another thread). Considering the divisions within the nation of Iraq between the Kurds and Arabs, as well as the Shiites and Sunnis, it seems that this will be a difficult barrier to instituting a democratic regime.
I don't know what step two would be, but I believe that it will not be successful unless the power bases within Iraq (mostly the money coming out of the Oil industry) are more evenly distributed among the citizens. I don't mean this in the sense of Socialist redistribution of wealth, but rather, an increase in real wages for workers within that industry, as well as increased spending on the public good, especially with regard to education. I'm not sure how the administration feels about that. Though.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Awwww. Poor old little US of A. Keeps its nose clean but still gets given the crappy jobs.
roadkill. Some information for you:
The US and its Allies supported and propped up Saddam's regime for decades and helped him fight a war against Iran. This included turning a blind eye to his dirty internal dealings, his elimnation of political opponents and his oppression of dissident groups. They gave money, military training etc. Britain nearly sold him a gun capable of launching projectiles over hundreds of miles. He was the West's pet in the middle East.
With the end of the cold war, he became expendable to the point of becoming a liability. His sabre rattling and threats against neighbours threatened oil supplies and hence, when he invaded Kuwait conflict was inevitable.
So don't pretend this is not the US's problem simply because the problem originates outside of US borders. You created the situation as much as anyone else, and arguably have more responsibility for Saddam's continued rule than any other Western democracy.
OMG...I agree with Dowding over something that has nothing to do with football (soccer, for the uneducated).
But..for the record..."I do not sympathize with terrorists";)
-
Dowding, we already have a few "allies" in the area that are amenable to letting us use their runways and docks.
Given that and given our ability to project power by sea and air I don't think it's going to be that much of a problem. Not "easy" because it's going to take a massive, expensive effort, but not a insoluable problem either.
The Iraqis are not in the same league militarily; not even close. Beyond that, they know it. Some of their vets of the Gulf War are still there; I'm reasonably sure they don't want to do that again. I expect that once we make the massive, expensive effort it will be resolved rather quickly in our favor.
Still, I'm not really in favor of it as yet. I do believe that there's a lot of intel and evidence that they are not sharing with us as yet. That's the nature of the intel biz... you generally don't go shouting about everything you know until and unless it would be of benefit to you to do that.
Nonetheless, they will eventually have to make a case for a "Just War" before the shooting starts...... however brief it may be. For now, I'm assuming they think they have or will have the necessary evidence and are simply preparing to do what needs to be done.
***********
Now, as to your UN remark. We don't need anyone to "go police some hellhole". Remember who went into the Balkans FIRST wearing the "blue beret"? Went without the US? How did that turn out again?
Seems to me like the shoe's on the other foot.. the UN needs the US to police hellholes.. because without us, they rarely get the job done. ( to those involved in the Timor action) Although, admittedly, these jobs are almost not "doable" in the long term.
Now we're probably going to police up that "hellhole" in Iraq. When we're done, it'll be a much better place for all its citizens. I'm guessing we're going without the UN too........
-
The decision to attack Iraq or not may have something to do with oil, and we may be responsible for propping old Saddam up for a few years.
So what?
Niether of those things have anything to do with the decision. It may be the right thing to do.... regardless. Pointing out our historical support of this idiot makes no sense at all.
The question of whether we and the rest of the world would be better, safer, etc. with Saddam in a permanent dirt nap, and Iraq under new management is really the key here. (Isn't it?)
-
Curval - who do you support again? ;)
Toad - so basically what you're saying is that you'll almost be doing it alone and that you will need allies in and the region. ;)
I'll say it again. You cannot do it alone. Sea based air power is simply not enough to rid Iraq of Saddam and start the process of building a democratic state. Anyone who believes any different is living in a dream world - you need troops on the ground and plenty of them, otherwise you'll have civil war or worse, total anarchy.
Carrier based air power is a great tool if you like making not-so-veiled threats or want to give someone a bit of slapping. But the value of air power in general is overstated. Look at how many Serb tanks were actually destroyed in Kosovo, it was a pitifully low number compared to the actual claims. Infrastructure was easily targetable and there was much success. But how does that hurt a totalitarian dictator in a country used to hunger, disease and death?
As for the UN in the Balkans - the ROE were so restrictive so as to make the job impossible. You know that. Given a free role, British troops would have 'done the business' in Sarajevo, Dutch troops would have 'done the business' in Srebrenica.
US forces didn't have that problem.
But I agree with your remark regarding peacekeeping in general. It's very nearly an impossible task in most cases. If people want to kill one another enough, they will do, and it takes a supreme effort to persuade them otherwise.
I agree with you regarding Iraq. It should be done, should a definite need arise and that must involve hard evidence rather than educated supposition.
MT -
Pointing out our historical support of this idiot makes no sense at all.
And neither does pointing out how the US is basically doing the world a favour in clearing up its own mess - a sentiment I was replying to in my first post.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
...I'll say it again. You cannot do it alone. Sea based air power is simply not enough to rid Iraq of Saddam and start the process of building a democratic state...
[/b]
Simply for the sake of argument on a slow day...
I think all you are really discussing is the time line. Bases in the area make it faster, probably cheaper too. But the outcome would still be the same using only our own resources.
The B-2's have demonstrated the ability to strike from the Continetal US, with extreme accuracy. The Navy would have to use most of its CV groups but they alone can take down Iraq's airpower and the important parts of the infrastructure and defense that would allow an amphibious landing.
It would just take longer.
Then the Marines would do what they do best, in concert with other airborne forces. Once you have a runway or two secured, the timeline speeds up.
As I said, IMO, end result is the same. Just takes more time and more money.
So, allies or no we could do it.
Fourtunately for our pocket book .. and perhaps for the world if the rumors of Iraq's nuke program are true..... we may be able to do it cheaper and faster than that. Because there ARE other countries that see Iraq as an immediate problem and are willing to lend a hand.
Not that I favor that approach. I sort of like the idea of using RC-135's and satellite resources to pinpoint every thing that remotely looks like a "command and control" location and to map out potential/probable locations of Iraq's "command authority".
Then, one dark night over Iraq... all that stuff goes down in the space of a few hours. Rinse and repeat. I'm a patient man. :D
But the value of air power in general is overstated.
[/b]
I'm not sure the Iraqi Republican Guard and/or regular forces would agree with you there. And they have firsthand experience. :D
As for the UN in the Balkans - the ROE were so restrictive so as to make the job impossible....... Dutch troops would have 'done the business' in Srebrenica.
[/b]
And who devised the ROE for that one? IIRC, the ROE set was one of the reasons the US chose not to participate intially. I think we even said it wouldn't, couldn't work under those ROE.
The UN's big problem.. and sorry for this.. when using Euro forces is that some folks there can't accept that you have to crack a few heads sometimes. Not naming any names of course, ;)
Can you imagine Aussie's getting "Stockholm Syndrome" like the Dutch did?
-
This isn't World War II. Aircraft can easily destroy enemy tanks. Apaches and Thunderbolt IIs demolished Iraqi armor in the Gulf War. There was no 'over-claiming' about tank kills in that conflict.
-
Hmmm...Dowding,
I never stated you didn't claim that the ultimate goal of the Falklands was to retain the rights to it's supposed oil reserves. So, you READ my post again :)
I just said that your claim to sovereignty over those islands is a stretch and an especially long stretch to justify that little cruise your Navy took. When the closest thing to a native population tried to go there, ole Maggy didn't like it. I will admit that the US does the same thing, but I at least know it's a hyprocritical stance at best. And am willing to state as much. Or didn't you READ the part in my post about us being "invited" to help the Kuwaitis.
And at the very least, unbunch those panties of yours.....your head is gonna explode! :)
Cobra
Edit..Actually Dowding, nationalities aside, I think we agree on some the basic premises, just not when it is applied to our "team". We can always find a hook to justify war. Hell we have to because of how utterly futile and destructive war is, abliet neccessary at times (i.e. WWII, etc.)
I am no expert on the Falklands by any means, but I do have a little better than passing knowledge of the subject. I was in college at the time of the conflict and had to do a college term paper on the subject. The backdrop of the paper was over whether it was morally right for the US to tacitly support GB on this or not. And the legitimacy of GB's claims to ownership in the first place. Understand it was while it was still in progress, and I was a bit more idealistic at the time. Age tends to bring more pragmatism which isn't always a good thing. What sucks is the folks that gave their lives on both sides.
-
"Nonetheless, they will eventually have to make a case for a "Just War" before the shooting starts...... " - Toad
That's what I've been looking for. It seems that the media has conceded that a war is a forgone conclusion, but I have yet to hear the government make a case for it beyond calling them "evil." I thought maybe I had misssed something in the news, and in fact maybe I have. Has the gov't laid out it's case anywhere?
-
Nah.. lets nuke Paris. Dowdings head nothwithstanding. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Curval - who do you support again? ;)
Arsenal...and whomever is playing Manchester United.:cool:
-
Originally posted by majic
Has the gov't laid out it's case anywhere? [/B]
If I recall, two weeks ago (and possibly earlier) there were some hearing before congress where policy wonks and regional experts testified before the Congress on the need for regime change in Iraq, however I have not heard anyone report that they were convinced to move right now. Sed. Joe Biden (Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee) was on Meet the press just over a week ago, and he seemed to indicate that he felt that we would move forward sooner or later, and that the only question was whether or not we would go it alone. But the government has not made the case to the public as of this time
-Sikboy
-
I think it is all smoke and mirrors...
When it is done, they will be rolling out the red carpet and begging us to come to in...and make something of their screwed up country. This admin with the medias help is playing them like a fiddle....
-
My guess is you'll start hearing the "details" of the "case" when the troops are on the move and action is actually imminent.
They better have what they need.
-
Thanks all for the info and opinions. I guess I'll just have to wait and see....