1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Franco-German Proposal?!

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by Cohen, Feb 8, 2003.

  1. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    Yes, glynch, you're right. This is really just a plot to take over Iraq. It *will* become the 51st state. But you don't know the half of it...

    We will take over the world! Iraq is just the first step... It will all be ours!!!!!

    Muuwahahaha!
     
  2. fatfatcow

    fatfatcow Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes china n russia too , china , russia , germant and france all at the same stance
     
  3. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,687
    Likes Received:
    16,217
    Treeman, sorry but most of these aren't miscalculations.

    Invading Iran in 1980: upwards of a million casualties on both sides, drove his country into such dire economic straits that he was forced (?) to invade Kuwait to get enough funds for debt repayment incurred during that war. No clear winner of Iran-Iraq war, with nothing to show for 8 years of brutal and costly combat. Miscalculation - Yes.

    Iran was encouraging revolts within Iraq and attempting to assassinate senior officials at the time. The Iranian military was recovering from the revolution and so Iraq picked a time to invade. You seem to think he actually cares about his people - he doesn't. He cares about power. 8 years of war & death is irrelevent to him as long as he strengthens his hold on power, nd he did.

    Iran was attempting to expand its influence at the time, and Iraq stopped it. In the process, he became friends with a number of Western powers, US included.

    Did not believe that the Israelis would destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor. They did. Miscalculation - Yes.

    Can't say I have enough background on this one to comment.

    Did not believe that the US/West would fight for Kuwait. Wrong messages sent by us, probably, but still a major booboo on his part; he simply failed to realize that he was hitting a vital nerve by invading Kuwait, and that we would have to respond.

    It was a mistake - not a miscalculation though. He was basically told by the US to do whatever and he had no reason to doubt it. Iraq was economically struggling after the Iran war. There were economic issues between the two countries - namely, Kuwait violating OPEC production rules. He tried diplomacy - it failed, so he invaded. He picked a war he could clearly win against a tiny enemy with the tacit approval of the world's biggest players.

    Didn't work out because we flipped our position, but it wasn't really a miscalculation. Besides which, he again maintained power.

    Believed that he could defeat the US in battle in 1991. Miscalculation - You betcha.

    You keep saying this, but I disagree. He may have doubted the U.S. would invade, but again this was a no-loss scenario for him. He wasn't going to keep Kuwait if he gave in, so why not try and see if we really would attack - nothing to lose except his people, which he doesn't care about. He maintained full control of his country yet again.

    Believed that US would lose its stomach for sanctions if he
    diverted funds made available through oil-for-food deals. Result: innocent Iraqis die, sanctions still in place. Miscalculation - Yes.


    Innocent Iraqis die - again, you think he cares? That just lets him play the U.S. as the big evil enemy some more. He didn't suffer one bit personally from those sanctions. He maintained power yet again.

    Perhaps. But how do you convince this man that he is really going to lose power? He will simply laugh at any efforts to strengthen inspections, and rightly regard them as a sign of weakness.

    If he does this, then you'll have world support for an invasion. If he doesn't, then the inspections should be far more effective with thousands of UN troops inside his country.

    And regime change is the main goal of the war. The weapons themselves are only a symptom of the disease. Regime change is the cure. The only cure, BTW.

    Remove all of his weapons tomorrow, but leave him and the Baathists in power, and they will simply restart the fermenters again as soon as the inspectors shut the door. Only replacing the leadership can prevent that from happening.


    Personally, I agree. However, I don't think the rest of the world does, and the U.S. has never made the case that regime change is or should be the goal - the focus has always been on disarmament. I can see a substantial majority of U.N. countries lining up behind this plan. The U.S. trying to justify ignoring that and still invading will be an interesting sell.
     

Share This Page