Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We are right!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    We have no grand strategy, we have a lot of posturing at a regional level and a fear of looking like cowards.
    I believe we do have a grand strategy, namely preventing the formation of a single power that could dominate Eurasia. While that is our primary long term objective, we also try to prevent a single power from dominating any important region.

    This is why the US opposed the Germans in WWII, the Soviets in the Cold war, and today is supporting Japan and India while opposing China. As long as important regions are balanced between major powers rather than dominated by one, we can use our own power and influence to tip the scales in any conflict that might arise there and safeguard American interests.

    Comment


    • #62
      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.
      Saddam violated a ceasefire. Saddam, not the US re-opened hostilities. Bush escalated, but Saddam started or re-started it. Saddam though his obfuscation, support of terrorism and other ceasefire violations would not amount to more than the pin prick air strikes ordered as part of Desert Fox. He figured he could out last the low intensity conflict as eventually the oil and debt owed to other P5 members would break the US lead embargo and blockade. He bet wrong.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Saddam violated a ceasefire. Saddam, not the US re-opened hostilities. Bush escalated, but Saddam started or re-started it. Saddam though his obfuscation, support of terrorism and other ceasefire violations would not amount to more than the pin prick air strikes ordered as part of Desert Fox. He figured he could out last the low intensity conflict as eventually the oil and debt owed to other P5 members would break the US lead embargo and blockade. He bet wrong.
        Saddam's actions giving the US legal grounds to invade doesn't mean such a course of action is in our interests. We certainly don't need to send a quarter million personnel into Syria just because Assad is an ass and has provided more than enough justification.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          Saddam's actions giving the US legal grounds to invade doesn't mean such a course of action is in our interests. We certainly don't need to send a quarter million personnel into Syria just because Assad is an ass and has provided more than enough justification.
          It was in our interest to move on him. Saddam was on the verge of defeating the sanctions. What would happen next with him unchained and thrown in the mix of the WoT was anyone's guess.

          Added is treading water for his own survival. No reason to move on him.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            Saddam's actions giving the US legal grounds to invade doesn't mean such a course of action is in our interests. We certainly don't need to send a quarter million personnel into Syria just because Assad is an ass and has provided more than enough justification.
            Removing Saddam was a positive good... it didn't go pear shaped until we bungled the occupation.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Removing Saddam was a positive good... it didn't go pear shaped until we bungled the occupation.
              Thats like saying we had a good game until the second half.

              And he second half is what is biting us in the ass. Decisions made then are the root of the problems now. We had Saddam contained.

              What made his violations any different than the NorKs ceasefire violations?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                yeah, of course #2.

                but as a saving grace--



                a grand strategy by definition requires an ideology. otherwise all it can be is a bunch of tactical realist decisions.

                in any case given the US system it's nigh impossible to sustain a long-term grand strategy. which is less hobbling than it used to be in the absence of a competing superpower and a more interconnected world (more white and black swan events).
                You say this like it's a bad thing :p

                Yeah, the US system is not capable of any real long-term grand strategy. The only three threads we could ever agree on is "let's kick out the British," "Let's conquer the continent," and "maybe we should do something about this Communism thing."

                Both Bush and Obama have a twist on the same general Wilsonist Fukuyama narrative so popular after 1991, although the preferred strategies were totally different, particularly in the near- and medium-term. That's pretty much baked into the cake, so to speak.


                We had Saddam contained.
                I guess this depends on what your definition of "contained" is. North Korea is still producing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Not very "contained." The only thing actually stopping Saddam from doing the same was his desire to have the sanctions lifted. If he decided he didn't care about the sanctions and just went full-steam ahead with WMD production, there was absolutely nothing we could do to stop him, anymore than we could stop Iran, or can stop North Korea.

                Well we can stop them. Just bomb the shit out of them till nothing is left. Won't weigh on my conscience.
                Last edited by GVChamp; 18 Sep 16,, 17:21.
                "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

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                  Thats like saying we had a good game until the second half.
                  Pretty much...

                  And he second half is what is biting us in the ass. Decisions made then are the root of the problems now.
                  We pulled out what should have been a 4th quarter win, then changed quarter backs and forfeited in the last 30 seconds of the game.

                  We had Saddam contained.
                  Not really, the sanctions regime was failing and would not have lasted much longer. He owed France and Russia too much money.

                  What made his violations any different than the NorKs ceasefire violations?
                  His support for Islamic terrorism and lack of a powerful international patron with a common border who could turn the whole thing into something we couldn't pay for.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    No chem weps eh?

                    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/21/po...ops/index.html
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      don't get it, this article talks about new crappy manufactured weapons by ISIS, not the original stockpiles.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Oh, so ISIS has it no problemo, but Saddam the peacelover did not. And couldn't make them. OK
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          yeah, of course #2.

                          but as a saving grace--



                          a grand strategy by definition requires an ideology. otherwise all it can be is a bunch of tactical realist decisions.

                          in any case given the US system it's nigh impossible to sustain a long-term grand strategy. which is less hobbling than it used to be in the absence of a competing superpower and a more interconnected world (more white and black swan events).
                          On the contrary,you need one more than ever,for precisely the same reason.
                          Tactics change,operations are flexible,but strategy is the one that gives everything a sense.
                          Those who know don't speak
                          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            THERE'S BEEN NONE WHO CAN STAND UP TO MY EVAL OF SADDAM. That includes you, Daivd!
                            I got an indirect confirmation of what you said about Saddam from the British chief of intelligence after she retired and spoke on a bbc program. She said exactly what you did in one line as the reasons for the invasion and then added she didn't agree with it ; )

                            Those reasons are never mentioned in the press because they can't be sourced but those in the know won't disagree. As i've said earlier the problem isn't that you're wrong but showing you're right. Turning oh's into ah's.

                            That requires more knowledge than the general public has. The media ain't going to help there.

                            The question ding the rounds these days about these campaigns is what did the west get for their trouble ? More security. How to expound on that. If the primary troublemakers are removed you have less threats. Somehow that answer isn't as satisfying. Then say security is the foundation upon what everything else rests. Still too abstract.

                            How to answer that to the citizens whose taxes paid for these adventures. This is a long answer than the easy soundbite we were lied to and robbed by bad politicians. Funny thing is it took a lot of colluding leaders from many countries.

                            Even on this board both invasions are generally agreed on along your lines. However occupation was contentious, the way in which it was conducted. That is a never ending argument which quite fankly is past its sell by date.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Sep 16,, 12:36.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              doktor,

                              Oh, so ISIS has it no problemo, but Saddam the peacelover did not. And couldn't make them. OK
                              what.

                              -no one- said he "couldn't make them", that's why there was a sanctions regime on him. mustard gas is one of the easier gasses to make, at that. even the anti-war folks thought he probably still had some old mustard shells, but old mustard shells isn't the same level of national security threat as a working nuke or VX.

                              the question was always whether or not the situation justified an invasion. i'm not talking just legal justification, but from the national security standpoint, a cost-benefit analysis.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Being right is rarely synonymous with taking the easy and non-involved path.
                                The doom and gloom sayers; with their 20/20 hindsight, point to among other things that the Afghan Incursion failed to crush Al Qaeda once and for all, and the failure to capture bin Laden. All the while, failing to mention the number of terrorists and potential suicide bombers that were prevented from menacing the streets and aircraft of the world.
                                As for Iraq! Well with my layman eyes I always looked at as preventive medicine. The thought of a vengeful Saddam and the other Iraqi leadership looking for payback, hooking up with bin Laden and his band of lunatic. Together with what we now know remained of the Iraqi WMD’s! Well like I said preventive medicine.
                                So Yes, OoE I too believe your right in your assertion.
                                That the result looks like a dogs breakfast, is nothing as compared to what a failure to act would have unleashed.
                                When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X