 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
But, we were the only ones footing the bill to keep that shoe there. Nobody could be arsed to give a hand, though they all lined up in the UN to whine about it.
Our money. Our boys. Our material keeping him at bay.
Our call when to change plans. |
Oh Lord....
We have spent more this month of war than we spent on containment, far, far more.
quote:
The US was damaging its own diplomacy by continuing the policy of containment. With the problem gone, our troops can go HOME. But that's pretty complex too..... |
Oh, you mean trade having 10,000 troops there for several years for 100,000 troops for a couple of years, yeah, wonderful.... Oh, but I forgot, we aren't going to get rid of our bases in the gulf even after this war..woops, your bad.
You know, I would continue arguing, but honestly, you seem to honestly believe what you say, so basically to continue with you would be a fine example of  and I don't have the patience for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Okay, GePap....since you insist on making this a complex equation, I'll spell it out for you:
Yes. We increase the short term presence and cost of forces in the region for the long term benefit of minimizing our presence in the region.
In case you were not aware, one cannot maintain a forceful presence in a given region (say....forceful enough to make containment work) while at the same time, minimize military presence in that region. The two goals are rather at odds with each other, wouldn't you agree?
If we continue on the path of containment, then that means keeping the no fly zones, and keeping enough forces in the neighborhood to pose a credible threat to Saddam until the time of his natural death, through the complete reigns of his children, and until such time as a fundamental change in regieme could be effected by natural or revolutionary means. That's a long time. Add up the sum total cost of maintaining the "containment force" for the 3-4 generations we're talking about, and it positively dwarfs the war.
On the matter of our damaged diplomacy. Minimizing our presence in the region does not necessarily mean giving up our bases, it means minimizing our presence there. We can still maintain a token presence at a couple of bases if we want/need to, and keep a low enough profile that it'd not be damaging diplomatically. Can you see how that might be in any way different from maintaining a highly visible presence in the region by continuing naval patrols and no-fly zones? Any difference at all? Yeah? VERY good sign!
And you're right on another point, as well. I honestly, honestly believe that this stuff is not rocket science. Saddam is a pretty predictable fellow, at the end of the day, despite your claims to the contrary.
Our actions in the ME are pretty predictable responses, despite your claims of a deeply rooted mystery here.
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 12-04-2003 at 02:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
How does one minimize our precense in the region by invading a state? The fact is that for many more years our precense in the gulf will be the biggest it has ever been.
quote:
If we continue on the path of containment, then that means keeping the no fly zones, and keeping enough forces in the neighborhood to pose a credible threat to Saddam until the time of his natural death, through the complete reins of his children, and until such time as a fundamental change in regieme could be effected by natural or revolutionary means. That's a long time. Add up the sum total cost of maintaining the "containment force" for the 3-4 generations we're talking about, and it positively dwarfs the war. |
first: only the nothern no-flight zone actually dettered Saddam, and that was dettering him from attacking the Kurdish areas. The southern one did nothing to detter Saddam from terrorizing Shia, and it could have been cancelled without any serious practical matter. pOlitically an admin. wuld have taken a hit, but practically, it would make no difference.
Second, you seem to assume that his children would have similar aims as the father, which you can't prove, nor could you even prove that his children would get to power without problems, specially since they were hated more than the father was.
If the US concluded binding defense pacts with SA and Kuwait then it could pull land forces ou of the region and do the job with the naval assest we are likely to keep in the gulf indefinitelly now. I believe we neevr did because of the political consequences of overt treaties with SA and Kuwait.
quote:
And you're right on another point, as well. I honestly, honestly believe that this stuff is not rocket science. Saddam is a pretty predictable fellow, at the end of the day, despite your claims to the contrary. |
Did you ever predict any of what he did? Did you predict everything he did, and did not do, during this war?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Regardless of whether the UN failed, doesn't anyone find it totally remarkable that Saddam deliberately chose to fight the United States rather than capitulated to 1441 or to our last minute ultimatum? |
It is totally remarkable, not to mention a good reason for the arab street to see him as a hero. Standing up to the US to the very end while most arab governments seem spineless in their eyes.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2003 02:03
GePap you're losing your traditional cool and its fun to watch.
|