Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

Thread: We are right!

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    but that still does not differentiate between Saddam and the Kims. the Kims have an even stronger track record of doing insane things (see the various murders along the DMZ, USS Pueblo).

    moreover, all the stuff you mentioned can be done without a state actor; ISIS certainly doesn't lack for creativity along those lines.

    it's certainly true that Saddam was trying to wiggle his way out of sanctions but it was clear from the post-war intelligence that as of 2003 he hadn't done a very good job of it, and indeed had an over-inflated sense of what he had. bottom-line, he posed a threat but nothing that could be characterized as an "imminent threat" and the "most dangerous threat of our time".
    We could not take out the Kims because if their threat to Seoul. We could take out Saddam. He was weak, we took the chance to drive in the knife when he was down.

    Given a few more years, with the sanctions gone and someone like Obama possibly in place, our other middle East allies wobbly , he could have been a very big problem.

    Alternatively, in stead of having the middle East blowing up we get an endless stream of terrorists coming to Europe and America, with the Arab populous on the sidelines facilitating and cheering them on openly or privately, with us having no center of gravity we can create the political will to attack.

    Those scenarios needed to be closed down pronto and Saddam presented himself.

    And, lest we forget, the core of Isis was just the remaining of Saddam's people

  2. #32
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    If there was ample evidence that Saddam was planning "a 11 Sept opportunity," then why was it necessary to lie our way into war? Why did the administration repeatedly tell the CIA their assessments weren't damning enough, and continually lie to Congress, the US public and our allies?

    If the evidence was there, the most obvious and honorable thing to do -- the smartest thing to do -- would be to use it, rather than lie.
    Oh hell, Are you this stupid? WE DID NOT LIE!

    Chem weapons were buried, Nuclear weapons research was buried! Oh hell, YOU'RE THAT IGNORANT!~
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 10 Sep 16, at 02:15.
    Chimo

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I'm not defending the occupation. When ISIS started winning, I took the opinion we should have done a Genghis Khan and left.
    Going scorched earth? Wouldn't that all but confirm the ISIS narrative of the Western infidels' desire to inflict genocide upon the people of Islam? The boon this would be for radicalization of Muslims worldwide would make our current problem look like a footnote.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  4. #34
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    Going scorched earth? Wouldn't that all but confirm the ISIS narrative of the Western infidels' desire to inflict genocide upon the people of Islam? The boon this would be for radicalization of Muslims worldwide would make our current problem look like a footnote.
    Who the fuck cares? At some point, you pissed us off!
    Chimo

  5. #35
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    During this entire thread, I was expecting someone, anyone, who can prove Saddam was NOT A THREAT!
    Chimo

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,593
    That Iraq was not a greater threat than Russia or China is only obvious in hindsight. There were a lot of people talking about how history was over in the early aughts and the US was never going to seriously have to consider another great power threat.

    Meanwhile the threat of terrorism seemed dramatically high and these rogue states seemed uncheckable. OoE is right, there was absolutely nothing we could to seriously stop Saddam from trying to hit us, other than killing him. OoE is also probably right that Saddam never seriously gave up his ambitions to obtain WMD. The nuclear and biological programs went to hell, but the chemical infrastructure was all there to start manufacturing weapons inside of 30 days, in a nation full of starving people and serious infrastructure gaps practically everywhere, especially in his military capacity.

    Saddam was not just another dictator, he was a dictator actively trying to hurt the US whenever he could. He was the most active anti-American agent at the time, except for Al Qaeda and Iran.

    North Korea and Iran were both not ignored, they were the targets of MASSIVE pressure from the US. In both cases, the pressure failed, and both will now be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

    Iraq, on the other hand, will probably never again be a producer of WMDs.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    During this entire thread, I was expecting someone, anyone, who can prove Saddam was NOT A THREAT!
    Prove? That's a what if scenario
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    During this entire thread, I was expecting someone, anyone, who can prove Saddam was NOT A THREAT!
    A threat to who? Didn't Blair claim that he (Saddam) could launch WMD to UK in 20 mins? Blair may have believed it and though in retrospect it was proved not to be the case if a Prime Minister or President believes it's a probability their first duty must be to act in the defence of the nation. In Bush's case having already slipped up on the 9/11 atrocity it was pretty clear that Iraq's supposed WMD program (which after all Saddam's son in law talked about no end as well as other refugees from the inner regime) was a possibility and potential risk too far. They decided on the basis of the post 9/11 trauma, threat assessment understandably was almost certainly been considered in a different light than may have occurred had 9/11 not happened. They of course could not be sure but to wait for a "smoking gun" may have entailed another atrocity. Were they right? In those circumstances the decision was certainly understandable but it is pretty clear that Blair was wrong about the 20 minute business... It's not clear he even ever had a missile that could reach the UK, let alone the US, though of course other WMD dispersion methods could have been used. I do not blame the decisions they took - I think most responsible people would have done the same - but in retrospect it was certainly a mistake for which Iraq is still paying.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    The war was not a mistake. The aftermath was. Especially disbanding the armed forces.

    P.S. Good to see you are well, S.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    During this entire thread, I was expecting someone, anyone, who can prove Saddam was NOT A THREAT!
    You've got it backwards, you don't invade a country because you can't prove they aren't a threat. You invade when you can prove they are an imminent and serious threat. Saddam presented neither to the United States.

    The criteria you've listed in this thread would have us invade half the world.

  11. #41
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The criteria you've listed in this thread would have us invade half the world.
    Here's the main one. Saddam signed and broke the terms of surrender. That's automatic war no matter which country you're talking about. Victor or defeated.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 12 Sep 16, at 15:14.
    Chimo

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    I hate to quote Dick Cheney of all people, but I think he had the right idea as Sec Def in 1992.

    "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

    "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

    "All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.

    "Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
    You mentioned earlier that you aren't defending the occupation, but I don't know that you can topple a government by main force without owning the problem afterwards. The alternative is to CIA Saddam and leave the Ba'athists in place, but as we've seen in South America, that can just leave the door open for the devil you don't know.

  13. #43
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I hate to quote Dick Cheney of all people, but I think he had the right idea as Sec Def in 1992.
    That was BEFORE he became a demonstrated threat to the US with a big time grudge.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    You mentioned earlier that you aren't defending the occupation, but I don't know that you can topple a government by main force without owning the problem afterwards. The alternative is to CIA Saddam and leave the Ba'athists in place, but as we've seen in South America, that can just leave the door open for the devil you don't know.
    Sure you could and it's been done and being done. Set up a civil war and let them kill each other for generations to come. That's how the Turks manged to keep their empire.
    Chimo

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    You've got it backwards, you don't invade a country because you can't prove they aren't a threat. You invade when you can prove they are an imminent and serious threat. Saddam presented neither to the United States.

    The criteria you've listed in this thread would have us invade half the world.
    Exactly.

    Dick Cheney was a serious threat to the United States even before 9/11, but I never thought I'd see someone here speaking with approval of the current situation in Syria and Iraq: "Set up a civil war and let them kill each other for generations to come."
    Last edited by DOR; 13 Sep 16, at 09:41.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,475
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    You've got it backwards, you don't invade a country because you can't prove they aren't a threat. You invade when you can prove they are an imminent and serious threat.
    The point is that after 9/11 the weight of presumption HAD to change. If you wait for a 'smoking gun' it's too late... suppose Saddam did have nuke? If he didn't why block weapons inspectors? Can you take that risk when 'waiting for the 100% proof' was what lead to 9/11? I think if I had been in Bush's shoes I would have done the same.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •