Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking genius. (That is sarcasm just in case you don't get it.) You don't say. You think a civil war is going to be bloody. Really? We have two choices. Either we go in there and risk retaliation(god help us if another world war ignites) or we can support the opposing Mujahidin. If we go in there and their people aren't ready for it then all we are doing is putting a bandage on severed limb. The solution has to come from the inside.
Oh, so we removed him. I guess the UN had nothing to do with it. You are aware that no other country supports a strike on Iraq. Of course you are aware of that. There is a big difference between the two.
Actually very aware of it. Although the British have pledged their support. As for removing Milosevic...it was the Americans that got it done. Oh yeah...and 3 French troops. You have to understand that when something gets done militarily by the UN it's done largely by us. When exactly did we start having to ask permission anyway?
It is not important who does the dirty work. What is important is public support from other major countries. Like we did with Afganistan. If we go into Iraq, the Arab world will sympathize with Suddam. Even though most other Arab countries despise him. But, to them the United States is getting involved in another Arab/Muslim issue. It would appear as if we are out to get them. If other countries get involved then although we are considered the ring leader, a major power struggle will not ensue.
I don't recall asking permission before going into Korea and Vietnam. In any event I'm sure that our servicemen and women will be happy to know that you don't find their identity important. And since when is Britian not a major country?
Don't twist the words around. Let me spell it out for you.It doesn't matter who does the dirty work refers to the country not the people. I am tired now. I have an early flight back tomorrow. We will continue this at a later date.
If Bush is going to invade Iraq, I wish he'd jsut go ahead and do it, to be honest. I'm sick of all the waiting. And if Saddam really is progressing so well with weapons of mass destruction, one would think we'd be in a hurry. I don't see Iraq as a true threat. Sure, Iraq wants nukes. They're possibly close to finishing them. But they're not going to use them. A state would never, ever use a nuclear weapon again, unless it believes it's essential for the survival of the state. To do so risks obliteration. Notice that Saddam did not use WMD during the Gulf War, despite his possession of anthrax, etc. He knew that in doing so, he'd be burning all his bridges to staying in power. Attacking Iraq this time would be a clear message that he's on his way out... would he hesitate then? I'm not sure, but very possibly not. Lots of risk implicit in attacking. And what do we really gain? A little time, perhaps. We're not going to keep nukes out of the hands of people we don't like. We failed in that goal 5 decades again. The Russians have them, the Chinese have them, the Pakistanis have them. Deterrence is proven and effective. But the primary rule of deterrence, Bush is prepared to violate. You always want to force your oponent to be the one that must come back from the brink. But the situation must be one from which they can return. Invade... and Saddam has no true out. It would be a grave strategic mistake on our part to arrive at that situation. In Viet Nam, this is why we shied away from ever attacking China, even as we knew they were supplying the Viet Cong. Attack a nuclear power that cannot defend itself against direct attack, and you have disaster. That's why Russia never dared to invade Europe. They knew the US couldn't field that kind of land army to defeat them. So the US would be forced to use nukes as a surrogate for conventional force. Deterrence has always worked in that fashion. Bush violates it at his own risk.
You are applying logic. The reason that is erroneous is that Saddam is a nut. Therefore he is bereft of logic. He wants the nukes so that they can be used against us. He views us as the devil. If he can eliminate the devil and dies in the process...then the belief is he becomes a martyr for Allah and goes to paradise with 30 virgins...etc. Maybe he doesn't launch them. He has been known to give money, training and weapons to terrorists. One of those guys could carry it over here in a briefcase, walk into a busy downtown area, and...BOOM...millions dead. He did use them against his own people at a later date. There is no concrete evidence that he had them at the time of the Gulf War...just that he was working on developing them. Once he has them in a useable form he will use them against us. So it doesn't matter either way. The premise is that they are close but do not have them yet. We need to take him out BEFORE they have nukes.
I agree that Saddam is unlikely to literally launch the nukes on the US. Deterrence does have its upside. Saddam is not a 30 virgins nutcase. He is pretty calculating and his main thing is to preserve and expand his power. He is a gambler though, and its possible he could go 'all in' for a high stakes move as he gets on in age. However, deterrence won't necessarily stop Saddam from nuclear blackmail. Who in the Middle East is going to push back when it comes down to it, if Saddam has nukes? And if we assume Saddam won't launch on anyone under the US nuclear umbrella, where does that leave those not protected by us? What would happen if Saddam nuked Iran? We certainly would not launch a retaliatory strike because of that. But that would certainly cause a mass crisis both in the middle east and in the world markets. What if he uses his nukes to strangle the flow of oil? His power increases exponentially with the acquisition of nukes. He 'could' make the Saudi oil fields unusable. Would the Saudis take that chance? I don't think so. And none of that touches on the risks that are inherent in proliferation from accidents, miscalculation, internal instability, or terrorism.
Exactly right. I still believe that he views the US as the devil and wants to wipe us out. But other than that I agree with you completely. THAT is why we need to take him out by any means necessary prior to Iraq obtaining the nukes.
You're comparing our relationship over 50+ years with Israel with our support of the lesser of two evils (given our perception at the time) in Iran and Iraq?? Come on! Our biggest allies??? Castro, Milosevic and Hussein?? Never, ever, never were these guys our "biggest allies." Count countries like Great Britain among our biggest allies historically...not Cuba or Iraq. I have no problem with assisting Iraqi factions to oust Saddam. But I'm not convinced that works without American military might...and I don't see this propelling us into world war, chicken little. No one in the world likes this guy...the Arab nations will sigh with relief when he's gone, because he's so damn unpredictable.
Iran was a Soviet client-state at the time. Our position was the ol' "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" deal. I'm not saying it was a perfect arrangement, we occasionally had to align ourselves with some pretty disgusting characters back then, but unfortunately sometimes the ends do justify the means.
