Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: This War Thing Again

  1. #1
    CaptShady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,461


    Yes | No

    Default This War Thing Again

    There exists "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda
    cooperated on attacks against the United States."

    There were contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but "they do
    not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
    In 1994, Baghdad rebuffed approaches from bin Laden to
    establish terrorist training camps inside Iraq. So the 9-11
    commission has concluded.

    And so, with no weapons of mass destruction yet found after
    18 months of searching, the second pillar of the president's
    case for war falls to earth. Iraq was an unnecessary war.

    Yet, now we have 138,000 soldiers there, with casualties
    mounting, the cost rising and the hostility to America's
    presence growing. Every attack on U.S. troops or contractors,
    even when they involve Iraqi dead and wounded, seems to be
    cause for jubilation.

    Yet, George Tenet of the CIA excepted, the men who told
    President Bush the war was necessary, that it would be a
    "cakewalk," that the Iraqis would welcome us with candy and
    flowers and take to democracy like kids to ice cream are
    still in place, still in power.

    In his now-famous 2002 State of the Union, President Bush
    named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." He
    vowed that America would not allow any one of the three to
    acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    In 2003, we attacked and invaded the only one of the three
    that did not have a secret nuclear program. And since that
    State of the Union, the other two have accelerated their
    programs to acquire the atomic weapons President Bush said
    they would not be permitted to have. At this point, the
    Bush Doctrine has to be judged a limited success.

    Given the mess in Iraq, neither the American people nor
    the White House appears to have the desire or will to force
    an end to the Iranian or North Korean bomb programs. The
    Iranians, who are threatening to crash the Nuclear Club,
    are bristling with defiance. Tehran seems to have concluded
    that America has no stomach for another war.

    Tehran may be right. But if North Korea already has an
    atomic bomb and Iran will not be stopped from acquiring
    one, what does a new world of 10 nuclear nations, six of
    them in Asia, mean for U.S. foreign policy? We had best
    begin to consider the possibility.

    No nation that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been
    invaded for a reason. The strategic base camp for any
    Normandy, Inchon or Desert Storm invasion could be turned
    into an inferno in minutes by atomic weapons.

    This suggests that in confronting a nuclear-armed North
    Korea or Iran, U.S. Army and Marine bases in South Korea
    and Kuwait, and U.S. naval bases on Okinawa and on the
    south shore of the Persian Gulf are becoming strategic
    hostages and not strategic assets.

    Put bluntly, if Pyongyang and Tehran acquire atomic
    weapons, there are no more axis-of-evil nations with
    which we can risk war. For there is nothing to be gained
    from such a war to justify running the risk of nuclear
    retaliation on U.S. bases in Asia or the Middle East, or
    on Israel, an almost certain target in any war with Iran.

    During the Cold War, both sides accepted outrages that
    might have been casus belli before atomic weapons. The
    United States did not use on Chinese armies in Korea over-
    running our troops the weapons Truman unhesitatingly used
    on Japanese cities. For Stalin, too, now had the bomb. Nor
    did we intervene to halt the massacre of Hungarian freedom
    fighters in 1956, or the building of the Berlin Wall in
    1961. Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of
    Afghanistan was a wheat embargo and a boycott of the Moscow
    Olympics.

    Moscow, too, was inhibited from taking action in Berlin,
    where it was strong, when the United States used tactical
    and theater superiority to force the Soviet missiles out
    of Cuba. And Moscow also failed to respond to Reagan's
    seizure of Grenada and aid to the Afghan resistance.

    As they used to say in the West, "God may have created all
    men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal." Nuclear
    weapons are the great equalizers. They concentrate the
    mind of a statesman wonderfully. And with North Korea and
    Iran plodding along toward the building of these awful
    weapons in blatant defiance of the Bush Doctrine the
    president and Sen. Kerry should be thinking about the world
    that will exist in the next presidential term. For by the
    end of that term, Iran and North Korea could both be full-
    fledged members of our nuclear fraternity.

    If they are, the idea of an American empire will become as
    outdated as the British Raj.

  2. #2
    Registered Member noob kismasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,713


    Yes | No

    Default

    mutually assured destruction is a motherfucker

  3. #3
    patfromlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    6,079


    Yes | No

    Default

    Mutually Assured Destruction = M.A.D.

  4. #4
    Registered User punchingdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,818


    Yes | No

    Default

    But that is the problem: MAD is no longer a viable strategy with desperate nations like NK and unstable regimes like Pakistan. Condiser the possibility of muslim fundamentalists killing Musharref (sp?) and controlling the weapons? Extremsists don't care about MAD as many are willing to commit suicude and murder for their cause.

  5. #5
    Merry Christmas Bitch Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    20,895


    Yes | No

    Default

    MAD only works when there are SANE people with something to LOSE in control.

  6. #6
    Registered Member noob kismasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,713


    Yes | No

    Default

    Originally posted by punchingdummy
    But that is the problem: MAD is no longer a viable strategy with desperate nations like NK and unstable regimes like Pakistan. Condiser the possibility of muslim fundamentalists killing Musharref (sp?) and controlling the weapons? Extremsists don't care about MAD as many are willing to commit suicude and murder for their cause.

    i thank god for israel

  7. #7
    Registered Member staff EuropIan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,495


    Yes | No

    Default

    The funny thing is that now there is Al-queda in Iraq, Now their influence in the in the region has increased.
    Bad strategic move, we have just given the enemy more to work with.

    As for the president, what do you expect from someone who pronunces it "nu-ke-ler".
    The "we have the bombs, ok?" (thank you Dennis Leary) argument is dwindling. But was it inevitable that other nations accquired nuclear weapons as well? Could a new cold war be brewing? Will we have to go to the negotiation table?

  8. #8
    Wargaming Nerd liuzg150181's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,219


    Yes | No

    Default

    Assumption of MAD:both sides are rational.
    "In times of change learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."

  9. #9
    Registered Member noob kismasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,713


    Yes | No

    Default

    at some level of heirarchy the "enemy" is rational or else they would all be dead already

  10. #10
    Xango
    Guest Xango's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    Ian: on what level can encirclement of a nuclear Iran be considered a 'poor strategic move'?

    I give this war a C on tactics, at best, but an A for strategy. Look long and hard at a map that contains both Afghanistan and Iraq. What does it tell you that we are occupying those places?

Posting Permissions

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