31-01-2003 01:31									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've considered that, yes.

-Arrian

	31-01-2003 01:52									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: but you said it did, which is what this is all about.

Sarcasm, che, sarcasm.

quote: But they couldn't, could they. They couldn't put missiles in Cuba. They couldn't invade the Middle East during the various Arab-Israeli Wars. They couldn't send troops or MiGs to Nicaragua. The USSR was extremely constrained by the power of the US.

They could if they wanted to. In fact, Kruschev got EXACTLY what he wanted to out of Cuban Missle Crisis (nukes out of Turkey). Kennedy just decided he wanted to turn it into Apoclypse soon.

Russia never showed any inclination to invade the ME during the Arab-Israeli wars. They had enough radical Muslims, they didn't need any more. Especially ones that would challenge the government so much that the army would be preoccupied.

And Migs to Nicaragua would be as feasible as the US sending F-14s to Afghanistan (in the 70s).

	31-01-2003 02:37									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I've considered that, yes. -Arrian

[retarded conservative rant]
Well, I don't care if Osama wants us to attack Iraq. We can't be concerned about what the terrorists want, because if we do, the terrorists have won!
[/retarded conservative rant]

	31-01-2003 04:33									#64
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: A lot of people don't seem to know anything about the history of the USSR and the reason they didn't simply go back to Moscow after pushing all the way to Berlin. Too much anti-communist propaganda is the cause...

didnt the Soviet Union promise to withdraw after the war? I may be miss remembering... as I do know Britain and the US did make concessions to the SU, I thought it was agreed at Potsdam conference that all European nations would have free elections after the war.

	31-01-2003 06:25									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by GePap At its height, the USSR had a GDP of about 2 trillion, it had over 200 million people, a space program, a huge fleet, so forth and so on. The USSR was a Superpower. Iraq has never been and will never be anyting greater than a local power. Iraq does not have the ability to stir rebellion anywhere, and I would add that while the USSR may have given aid, it never started a single damn rebellion: the Stalinist leadership was actually rebellion adverse (hence killing the real revolutionaries like trotsky) and never started anything. Revolutions abroad were begun by local revolutionaries with local beefs: had the US understood that back in 1950 it's life would have been much easier: it is ironic that someone with a 1950;s view of the USSR and its relation to international revolution could try to argue against a theory of deterence calling it '1950's arguments'. THe article makes a clear point: anyone who argues for a war on Iraq based on lines of arguments that call Iraq a clear and present danger to the US today do so without much evidence or theory to back them. If you guys wish to seel a moralistic argument for war, go ahead, but stop making arguments that are baseless.

GePap, Let's be fair. The article calls for heavy US involvement is an open-ended containment effort. We are supposed to deter direct and indirect attacks IN THE REGION using our own Nukes. We are to threaten Iraq with total annihilation if they use WoMD on one of the states in the region.

But, is this really credible? Suppose Saddam again attacks Iran and opens by nuking Teheran. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran. Are we going to then nuke Baghdad?

I doubt it.

The article is very seriously flawed in concept. It is also flawed in many of its details.

	31-01-2003 06:32									#66
	Remove this text

Big deal Kramerman... like the US has been completely honest in its own foreign policy?

I'm not defending or justifying the SU's past policies. I'm simply pointing out that if someone is going to justify the US's violent foreign policy; the SU is no worse... in fact, the SU isn't responsible for creating the largest arsenal of nukes in the world... the SU isn't at the brink of starting a holy war with a billion Muslims... food for thought for Americans who think their sh1t don't stink...

	31-01-2003 06:49									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I actually think this is a good thread, and have succeeded in reading it in its entirety.

Che has some good points that the USSR's "involvement" in the east was not that different from the US's involvement in the west. We were both fighting for influence in a very nervous post-war world. I think we in the west are too quick to characterize all actions by the soviets as bad and all actions by the "freeworld" as good. Clearly Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the lack of pressure on France to give up it's colonial power in Indochina before Ho Chi Minh went crazy waiting for help, etc were suboptimal longterm strategies for the States United. I still think, that on balance the States are the good guys, but that is a separate issue.

The central issue in this Iraq'03 debate is certainly the potential response of Israel to Iraq securing a nuclear warhead. If you all recall the Israelis took out an Iraqi nuke reactor way back when to avoid this possibility and without question, the US fears this situation more than any other in the region. What would be the Israeli reaction to a Baghdad with a Nuke tipped Scud? Without question it would be a preemptive strike. If that strike succeeded or failed it wouldn't matter, it would potentially set back Arab/Israeli relations hundreds of years.

A nuclear exchange between Israel and Iraq could easily occur with horrifying shortterm and longterm consequences. This is the real risk. The US knows it, and knows that it must act as a proxy for Israel and preempt a real Armageddon. After Iraq'03 look for the States to insist that Israel stop pissing off (and on) the Pals. By the next time a ME state developes nukes, the Jews and Arabs had better be buddies.

	31-01-2003 06:55									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Sten Sture, if you believe that Israel nuking Baghdad will set back US relations with the Arabs, what do you think would happen if WE nuked Baghdad.

But that is exactly what the article asks us to do.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

	31-01-2003 10:44									#69
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned This is complete and utter nonsense.

Absolutely. The last thing the States would ever do is nuke a city. Any city. Even if we had proof that the govt of that country nuked us. Period. We are a merchant country, and the world is our consumer - you do absolutely the least amount of damage required to get the job done. Hiroshima has cost us billions, we won't make that mistake again.

If we got nuked by Iraq, we would take over the entire country, capture as many responsible leaders as possible, try them for crimes against humanity and put them to death ourselves (not thru The Hague), maybe (slim) even battlefield (tactical) nuke a military instalation - but no cities. Ever. The long term indirect commercial losses and onsite clean-up costs are way too high.

	31-01-2003 11:57									#70
	Put an end to popups!

If Iraq nuked us, we would retaliate in kind. We are a vengeful nation. No President would survive an election he let a nuke go without a proportional response.

	31-01-2003 17:32									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture Absolutely. The last thing the States would ever do is nuke a city. Any city. Even if we had proof that the govt of that country nuked us. Period. We are a merchant country, and the world is our consumer - you do absolutely the least amount of damage required to get the job done. Hiroshima has cost us billions, we won't make that mistake again. If we got nuked by Iraq, we would take over the entire country, capture as many responsible leaders as possible, try them for crimes against humanity and put them to death ourselves (not thru The Hague), maybe (slim) even battlefield (tactical) nuke a military instalation - but no cities. Ever. The long term indirect commercial losses and onsite clean-up costs are way too high.

Your reasoning is profound. But the result you reach is correct.

BTW, I also had serious doubts that the US would nuke Moscow if, for example, the Soviets nuked a European city. That would invite retaliation on the US.

	31-01-2003 17:36									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If Iraq nuked us, we would retaliate in kind. We are a vengeful nation. No President would survive an election he let a nuke go without a proportional response.

Che, again, let us stick to the facts. The article calls for US containment of Iraq in the ME. If he nukes Teheran, do we nuke Baghdad? That is the question on the table.

	31-01-2003 17:36									#73
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned Your reasoning is profound. But the result you reach is correct. BTW, I also had serious doubts that the US would nuke Moscow if, for example, the Soviets nuked a European city. That would invite retaliation on the US.

which is why it is a good job the UK had its own nukes.

	31-01-2003 17:42									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger which is why it is a good job the UK had its own nukes.

Which is WHY the article is seriously, seriously FLAWED in basic concept.

The Japanese and South Koreans face the same problem now with North Korea.

	31-01-2003 20:12									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

BTW, I also had serious doubts that the US would nuke Moscow if, for example, the Soviets nuked a European city. That would invite retaliation on the US.

Wasn't it US policy during the Cold War to nuke the Soviets even if they attacked Europe conventionally? Or if they had tried to take the Mid East conventionally?

You can't answer whether the US would have actually followed through, but yet it worked.

So to answer your question(sort of), the idea is that the threat of nuclear attack would be enough to keep Iraq from even nuking Tehran.

	31-01-2003 20:13									#76
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Which is WHY the article is seriously, seriously FLAWED in basic concept.

Until you can explain to me why Iraq is less rational than the USSR I fail to see why a containment strategy will not work.

	31-01-2003 20:15									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader Wasn't it US policy during the Cold War to nuke the Soviets even if they attacked Europe conventionally? Or if they had tried to take the Mid East conventionally?

IIRC, the policy was to start with battlefield nukes only in the European theater and then if that failed to get them to turn back ratchet up the pressure from there.

	31-01-2003 20:41									#78
	Remove this text

quote: Until you can explain to me why Iraq is less rational than the USSR I fail to see why a containment strategy will not work.

Saddam, while still rational, is a cornered animal right now. There is no telling what might happen in that situation.

	31-01-2003 21:21									#79
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Who's putting him in the corner?

	01-02-2003 00:48									#80
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You maybe thinking of Kenneth Waltz with the "old man Walt of realism" comment. However, Stephen Walt is the one at Harvard.

That's what I thought..I took Stephen's Walt's last class at Chicago, "War and the Modern State", before those rich Harvard Bastards took him from us

Ned:
The IAEA inpsectors in their monday report reported that they have no evidence of a clandestine Iraqi nuclear program after a month of investigating all the sites that the Bushies asked them to search. They investigated the "aluminium pipes" and came to the conclusion that the Iraqi story, that they were using them to make conventional weapons (whch they should in theory be doing either) and not to enrich uranium, as the Admin. keeps claiming. Bush may claim that Iraq is not revealing all its Bio_chem agents but the admins. argument over nukes looks very thin indeed. So I would not worry much about a Isralei reaction to a no longer operational program.

And as Dino said: someone gives us a good theoretical argument about why Saddam can't be dettered, and Uh Clem put it very well in his response to Imran's argument, if one can call it that.

	01-02-2003 00:55									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Edit: Double Post

Last edited by GePap on 01-02-2003 at 01:01

	01-02-2003 01:22									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sava [retarded conservative rant] Well, I don't care if Osama wants us to attack Iraq. We can't be concerned about what the terrorists want, because if we do, the terrorists have won! [/retarded conservative rant]

...meanwhile the UN has passed a condemnation on Sava for genocide in Strawmania.

	01-02-2003 01:32									#83
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap That's what I thought..I took Stephen's Walt's last class at Chicago, "War and the Modern State", before those rich Harvard Bastards took him from us

I had forgotten that you were from the U of Chicago. Have you ever taken any classes with Mearsheimer? I've just got done reading what I assume to be his most recent book.

	01-02-2003 01:47									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Who's putting him in the corner?

He put himself in the corner and made himself a pariah.

	01-02-2003 01:50									#85
	Remove this text

I never took one of Mearshimer's classes: I had him as a one day substitute for a class by Bob Pape, and I have gone to several talks by him, and spoken with him a little at pol Sci events in Chicago. I am not fully a realist thinker, but mix realist theory with constructivist theory, a little more then like Alexander Wendt. I haven't read his newest book.

	01-02-2003 02:35									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

GePap, Ah ha! So that explains what has been happening. We are telling the inspectors where to look. The Iraqi's clean it up (we have photos) and then the inspectors arrive.

The mole is in the US state department!

	01-02-2003 02:42									#87
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

DinoDoc, et al., our policy in Europe was that an attack on Europe was an attack on the US. Our doctrine called for massive retailation - which probably meant progressive retaliation until the Soviets surrendered.

But it also meant that we would start a nuclear war if the Soviets attacked in Europe and we knew that the US would likely be hit with nukes.

Now, Europe may have been worth New York, Washington, Chicago and LA.

But is Iran? Is Saudi Arabia? Is Kuwait. Is Syria. Etc.

You bet your bottom dollar they are not worth it. You will never see an American administration sign up for such a containment theory.

Would France or the UK step in for us?

I doubt it.

It won't work, not so much because Saddam is unstable, but because the American people will never agree to it.

	01-02-2003 03:03									#88
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

How about a mole in the inspection team itself?

	01-02-2003 04:02									#89
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Azazel How about a mole in the inspection team itself?

It depends on whether the only sites cleared are the one's we give the inspectors. This is why I reacted to GePap's suggestion that even with our suggestions of where to look, the inspectors have come up with a dry hole. The mole, assumed to be in the UN team, could be in the US state department.

	01-02-2003 04:33									#90
	Got spare money?

I bet it's Donald Rumsfeld! He's had dealings with Saddam before. You can't trust anyone. Who knows how many others he recruited into the pay of the Iraqis?

Stalin would be proud.