Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I wonder if you can understand my anquish that I should have been able to come to a different conclusion but would not or could not.
I suspect that it is more a case of could not, rather than would not. I would guess that the anguish is that given differing evidence you would have been prepared to come to a different conclusion, but having to er on the side of caution and live with the consequence of underestimating Saddam, you couldn't simply dismiss the evidence you were receiving and the consequences of that judgement.
Hindsight is perfect, as we know, and its also easy for pundits (even amateur ones like me) to make great statements when they don't have to suffer the consequences of being wrong. Or, i guess, the consequences of being right.
Maybe not because of the corruption.
But when the megalomanic absolute ruler of the afore-mentioned country has repeatedly shown himself ready-willing and able to start wars against not only his neighbours, but also wars of extermination against his own subjects. Wars that until he was toppled from power had cost over a million lives.
This alone; WMD's or not, provides a powerful argument for initiating a premptive war!
But that was a reason to push onto Bagdhad in GWI. Or to support the Kurds in their uprising, or to conduct a proper offensive when Iraq fired on US/UK aeroplanes patrolling the no fly zones. and so on.
It isn't a reason to invade Iraq in 2003, because if it was, why didn't Bush do it 2 years earlier?
Its evidence that the end justifed the means, but it doesn't justify the justification.
So are you saying that it is ok to support dictators?
I'm sick of you not even bothering to read my posts, and then accusing me of this, more than once. When have I ever said it was ok to keep a dictator in place ever? You can't say the same. Now maybe you don't speak English well, so I'm going to give you a chance to prove I support keeping dictators in place before I take this as an insult.
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
You need to check out the history a bit, USA has the worst record of supporting the all kinds of despotic regimes and dictators all over the globe.
That worse-record that you mentioned is always proportional to the height of a nation power. United States's support for despotic regimes and dictators all over the globe is very much intuned to what a super-power should do. Infact, if we apply the laws of proportionality, you will find that many of those despotic regimes and dictators (US ally or not) also support their own list of revolutionary movements, in-exile groups and terrorists for their own agenda.
Far from being the "liberator" US has been party to oppressions of millions of people round the globe, and still is.
I will never stop pointing out the flaws of military people and civilian in the West who talk about the glories of Iraq war and how it was so good ... but saying that United States "has been party to oppressions of millions of people round the globe, and still is" ... is a huge exageration and a lie.
Right at this moment look at the kind of regimes it supporting, Musharraf in Pakistan is a dictator, Mubarak in Egypt is another dictator, King Hussain of Jordan is a king, family of Sauds in Saudi Arabia, and many more. People in these countries do not have any democratic rights/freedom.
Democracy is double-edge sword that is sometimes great and sometimes flawed when it conflicts with national intrest in this case US. Surely you (USA) cannot hope to install democract regimes in Anti-American nations. Look at Palestine that voted for Hamas. Or Dr Mossadeq of Iran which nationalised the Iranian oil or Chili. A demoractic Egypt or Saudi Arabia will be a threat to United States intrests, nothing more or less. Now imagine a demoractic Pakistan with the majority being anti-American.
Sad and certainly not right, but why this picture out of the thousands of others? Starving Africans in Ethiopia, North Koreans under their "communist" monarchy, Burma, Nigeria, Russia, and about 50 or so other countries with governments that have little interest in their people, or that simply lack the ability/desire to do anything.
Sad and certainly not right, but why this picture out of the thousands of others? Starving Africans in Ethiopia, North Koreans under their "communist" monarchy, Burma, Nigeria, Russia, and about 50 or so other countries with governments that have little interest in their people, or that simply lack the ability/desire to do anything.
I keep wondering what does IIRC stand for?
If I recall correctly
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson
I'm sick of you not even bothering to read my posts, and then accusing me of this, more than once. When have I ever said it was ok to keep a dictator in place ever? You can't say the same. Now maybe you don't speak English well, so I'm going to give you a chance to prove I support keeping dictators in place before I take this as an insult.
Couldn't do it in 3 years. Just as full of s*** as we all knew you were...
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
Couldn't do it in 3 years. Just as full of s*** as we all knew you were...
Well...in all fairness, Ironduke did ban him about a month after he made that post, so not a lot of opportunity to respond...unless of course you count his numerous sock puppets
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
People die in war. It comes down to a decision, thousands for millions. It sucks, but that's how things are. If it were me living in Iraq, I would want the chance.
If it was me in Iraq I'd pack the car and run my ass out of there. I'd even risk getting my hand chopped off (if they do that there) by stealing a car to get the hell out of there.
Originally posted by GVChamp
College students are very, very, very dumb. But that's what you get when the government subsidizes children to sit in the middle of a corn field to drink alcohol and fuck.
Comment