Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We are right!

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

  • zara
    replied
    I wonder if we had not invaded Iraq would it have turned out any different. The Arab Spring was not related to the invasion and I think Saddams Iraq would have have been ripe for an uprising just like Syria and Libya. Although the Sunnis were the favoured ones in Saddams Iraq so perhaps ISIS would'nt have found as much traction..

    Leave a comment:


  • Amled
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    don't get it, this article talks about new crappy manufactured weapons by ISIS, not the original stockpiles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    No chem weps eh?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/21/po...ops/index.html

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X