Confed999

Saddam and the Taliban played games too...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Trooth

Aye, and they got invaded. Taliban to capture Bin Laden, Saddam in preparation for Iran and Syria. Iran knows why Iraq was invaded - its playing the only cards it has.

__________________
The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

scotsboyuk

@Confed999

Saddam was a paranoid drug user with about as much grip on reality as Big Jimmy 'Madman' McMad, winner of the Maddest Madman award at the Madtown Mad House!

The Taliban were about as politicaly saavy as a man voting for Fascists because he thinks they will be good for 'community relations'. There is also the fact that the Taliban cared for international politics about as much as a dog cares for being neutered.

__________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

Confed999

To end their support of AQ really. Nobody knew if OBL was there...
Saddam for failing not to play games really...
And Iran's government supports terrorism, insurgency, and preaches marterdom. I see little, if any, difference...

scotsboyuk

Really? You don't? How curious.

They may very well do all of those things you mentioned, but they know full well what they are doing and they are doing it with intent to effect the international political scene. Wrong? Yes. Mad? No. They are doing what most countries do, gauging their capabilities and limitations and looking to gain something for themselves by playing the game that is international politics. Hmmm ... international politics ... perhaps they are mad after all.

Confed999

No, the same argument could be made for Saddam, easily.

scotsboyuk

It probably could, but then the fact that he was a drug addled psychotic with as much scope of the real world as Alice in Wonderland seems to differntiate him from the Iranian government in my opinion.

Confed999

I don't know the level of drug use with Saddam or anyone in Iran. Care to display any toxicology reports?

scotsboyuk

Not particularly, I would call Saddam and ask him, but apperently he's in some hot water at the moment and his place is just upside down so he can't lay his hands on them. Don't even get me started on asking the Iranians for things, I popped over there other day to ask them to stop their nuclear programme as we couldn't hear the telly, they refused. How rude!

I believe a former aide of Saddam's has commeneted on his drug use, Google it, you should be able to turn something up I'm sure. I believe dhe invaded Kuwait whilst on drugs. A reason to 'Just Say No!' if there was ever one.

There is no evidence to show that the Iranian government is whammied, spaced out, high, sloshed, seeing stars, dancing with faeries, mushroomed or in any other way plastered when formulating foreign policy.

Equilibrium

On the issue of force and diplomacy, I can only say as a practitioner of statecraft that a weak defense policy leads to a weak foreign policy, but a strong defense policy does not neccesarily create a strong foreign policy.

If we were militarily weak, one could not negotiate, you could only hope or accomodate. Yet the perception of a country's interests and the willingness of a country to pursue its political goals along with the unity of its people behind the policy is what determines a county's position in international politics.

Simultaneously, other nations must not be led to doubt one's own stregnth or resolution. For how other nations perceive you would determine the risks they and our allies will be willing to run and the degree they will place confidence and credibility in one's policies.

It is with confidence of stregnth in international politics that permits one to act with conciliation and responsibility to shape a more peaceful world. Moderation is a virtue only among those with an alternative.

Confed999

So what you're saying is that you heard some guy said that's what happened. Not much of an argument. I'm sticking with: no measureable difference...

scotsboyuk

@Confed999

As I said you are free to look it up.

Trooth

Saddam was a necessary mistake if only because it has diverted so much resource from the actual gameplan. Strategically i believe Iraq had to be taken out of the middle east as part of the WoT. However it was portrayed as being a direct part of the WoT, an imminent risk etc ad nauseum. This was a mistake, because it means that a great many sensible people cannot rationalise the war and a great many lunatics have a handy excuse. It is, however, difficult to see a situation were the US could have said "we are invading Iraq so that we can then move onto Syria and Iran" because of course that would confirm the fact that the infidel was on a world tour and would cause Syria and Iran (and perhaps a few others) to mobilise directly for war and in support of Iraq - since their military leaders would know the same as the US leaders that its better to fight in someone else's backyard.

So, we must now ride out Iraq and move on. However whilst it is clear to the west that Iran and Syria are the main focus of the WoT it is also clear to Iran and Syria. Iran knows what it is directly facing and being accused of, Syria currently has US sanctions against it (and anyway has a rough idea how it is viewed in Washington).

Therefore these nations are going to play their hands out. They have until Iraq is stabilsied to get whatever they can. Once Iraq is able to stand on its own two feet President Jeb Bush may well be looking to guarantee a second term by moving his pieces to the west .

Confed999

Hey, you believe it and can't back it up, so why should I waste my time? Either way, drugs or not, it's still the same story...
Not really, the bombers can still fly...

Garry

Those who share your ideas resemble a communists at a time of their power.... no agreements or international laws meant anything for them as they had a GLOBAL VISION OF IDEAL WORLD. So they thought that interestins of small people or countries did not matter in this BIG GAME.

OK. apart from those parrallels...

Do you have an idea what it might take to control territories you are speaking about if you win their Governments millitarily? Managing them from education to traffic control? I think that Iraq is good example to understand what kind of a problems you would meet there.

If you mean just an air strickes and sanctions - without a threat of intervention they prove to have little effect...... Iran has uranium deposits on its territory. Bombing Iran will not stop them but delay them.... and since you bombed Iran you are in war with them and better invade Iran as it will be far more troublemaker.

Syria is an easier case to start with.... But to go there you need to have Iraq stabilized and peacefull - something I doubt to see anytime soon, unless you put some local and brutal guy in charge, which is not possible as whole world is watching you there...