StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think we can agree on this much: There are NOT a lot of reasonable scenarios that involve Iraq stopping.

Our biggest set of disagreeements seem to be over whether there is a viable means for the US to act so as to prevent the attack. Looking at the correlation of forces, at the history of US involvement in the gulf, and at the sad state of expertise in the region I simply don't seeany reasonable scenario in which diplomacy alone can work to stop Saddam. In turn this means that the US would have to intervene with armed forces prior to the invasion...and I don't see any reasonable scenario by which that can be done in a manner that is anything other than a token force. The political realities of Central Command were such that it would have cost Bush I a huge amount of political capital for something that was far from garunteed to work and likely would not have paid back that political capital if it did work.

Straha wrote:I can see where you're coming from and I agree with you, mostly. I don't think that a threat of U.S. intervention would have definitely worked to scare Saddam off, but at the same time I think if anything could have worked that was it and that it had a semi-decent chance of working if done right.

The key words there are "done right". The problem was that "doing it right" needed a level of force commitment that wasn't politically practical either in the U.S. or in the Gulf

It certainly wouldn't have happened at the same scale or with the same diplomatic approach that the Bush administration used, and that could have made miles of difference in how things ended up. (Either for better or for worse.)

I think it would have happened anyway mroe or less as it did. It may have happened a bit later or slightly differently organized (with the aborted strike from the North through Turkey taking place perhaps) but the way things were developing, Saddam's departure was going to happen. He'd simply alienated too many people and was rattling his sword too loudly while causing too much contention around the Gulf.

The man wasn't fit to be President. When you're President sometimes you have to say "This is how it's going to be. That's that. I'm the leader of this god damned country and if you have a problem with this, tough shit." Carter never got that down. I think from there all his other faults follow, because when you think everything can be negotiated and compromised down then you don't understand that inaction and indecisiveness will hurt you and then you never get around to actually resolving any pressing issues or concerns.

No arguments there.

Out of curiosity, on a related note, what's your opinion of the Vincennes incident?

I'm not sure quite what you mean here. My opinion of the incident itself was that shit happens. It was also a waste of two perfectly good missiles. If you mean why did it happen, I can give you chapter and verse on what actually went on behind the scenes if you like (its a complicated story). It's an interesting mix of how personalities and electronics can merge to create disasters. If you mean who was to blame, it was the British. (Ask why before jumping )

That's fair. I understand where you're coming from, and part of me agrees with it. The thing is I don't give Saddam that same degree of brute force ruthlessness as some others do. Saddam, when he needed to be, could be a sly crafty SOB, and I think that if that man was reminded that "If you do this, you die." he might have backed down for a while.

He was indeed a sly, crafty PoS but it was the brute force side that dominated his make-up. If you like, he was sly and crafty about how he beat people to death. Given his mentality, saying "Do that and you die" would lead to a response, "but I'm not doing that" and then he'd do it again and keep denying it. That's why nobody believed him in the run-up to OIF.

Stuart wrote: The key words there are "done right". The problem was that "doing it right" needed a level of force commitment that wasn't politically practical either in the U.S. or in the Gulf

I agree with you there, actually. It would have been hard for Bush to justify moving large amounts of force to the Middle East without facing discontent in the senate. The question, however, is how the war could have been averted, and this is how. :p It's hard to do but theoretically possible.

I'm not sure quite what you mean here. My opinion of the incident itself was that shit happens. It was also a waste of two perfectly good missiles. If you mean why did it happen, I can give you chapter and verse on what actually went on behind the scenes if you like (its a complicated story). It's an interesting mix of how personalities and electronics can merge to create disasters. If you mean who was to blame, it was the British. (Ask why before jumping )

I'd actually be very interested in why it happened, especially as to how this can be pinned on the Brits. (As an aside, an Iranian once told me that his family thought the British arranged for the Iran-Iraq War, the American intervention and then the Vincennes incident, just to kill as many Iranians as possible. This is not the most elaborate conspiracy theory involving the brits I have ever heard from an Iranian mouth either.) :p

He was indeed a sly, crafty PoS but it was the brute force side that dominated his make-up. If you like, he was sly and crafty about how he beat people to death. Given his mentality, saying "Do that and you die" would lead to a response, "but I'm not doing that" and then he'd do it again and keep denying it. That's why nobody believed him in the run-up to OIF.

Saddam invading Kuwait is a very simple "Yes" or "No" situation. That is, it's very hard to only kind of invade Kuwait, or commit a partial invasion of Kuwait, that is to say not a invasion of only a part of Kuwait but rather an action that only counts partially towards committing an invasion. In fact I dare say it's nigh on impossible to do that. So he can't get away with saying "I'm not doing that" without, actually, not invading Kuwait. As for putting pressure on Kuwait, let him. There's only so much he can do before invading, and any pressure the rest of the GCC can put on him can far outweigh his pressure on Kuwait. By forcing him to realize an invasion would be terminal to his career and nation he would have had to figure an alternative, and ninety-nine out of a hundred alternatives would be far better to Desert Storm.

Straha wrote:

Stuart wrote:He was indeed a sly, crafty PoS but it was the brute force side that dominated his make-up. If you like, he was sly and crafty about how he beat people to death. Given his mentality, saying "Do that and you die" would lead to a response, "but I'm not doing that" and then he'd do it again and keep denying it. That's why nobody believed him in the run-up to OIF.

Saddam invading Kuwait is a very simple "Yes" or "No" situation. That is, it's very hard to only kind of invade Kuwait, or commit a partial invasion of Kuwait, that is to say not a invasion of only a part of Kuwait but rather an action that only counts partially towards committing an invasion. In fact I dare say it's nigh on impossible to do that. So he can't get away with saying "I'm not doing that" without, actually, not invading Kuwait. As for putting pressure on Kuwait, let him. There's only so much he can do before invading, and any pressure the rest of the GCC can put on him can far outweigh his pressure on Kuwait. By forcing him to realize an invasion would be terminal to his career and nation he would have had to figure an alternative, and ninety-nine out of a hundred alternatives would be far better to Desert Storm.

Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia to annex Sudentenland. Chamberlain attempted to prevent this invasion by appeasing Hitler and allowing Germany to annex Sudentenland without going to war. Afterwards, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia to annex the rest of that nation.

I don't think we can discount the possibility Saddam's reaction to "Don't invade Kuwait, or we'll bomb you back to the Stone Age," would be "I'll continue to threaten invasion, and the threat will be so great that Bush/Gorbachev/whoever will cower before my military might as Chamberlain did before Hitler's. I'll offer to cancel the invasion if they allow me to annex part of Kuwait- without consulting the Kuwaiti government, just as Chamberlain didn't seek prior approval from the Czech government- and then annex the rest with minimal resistance."

Sidewinder wrote: Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia to annex Sudentenland. Chamberlain attempted to prevent this invasion by appeasing Hitler and allowing Germany to annex Sudentenland without going to war. Afterwards, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia to annex the rest of that nation.

Go look at a map. There isn't enough of Kuwait to do that with. Kuwait is teeny-tiny. And the actually useful parts of Kuwait are even smaller.

I don't think we can discount the possibility Saddam's reaction to "Don't invade Kuwait, or we'll bomb you back to the Stone Age," would be "I'll continue to threaten invasion, and the threat will be so great that Bush/Gorbachev/whoever will cower before my military might as Chamberlain did before Hitler's. I'll offer to cancel the invasion if they allow me to annex part of Kuwait- without consulting the Kuwaiti government, just as Chamberlain didn't seek prior approval from the Czech government- and then annex the rest with minimal resistance."

The phrase "Apples and Oranges" doesn't begin to explain how far apart these two situations were, no phrase really does. Perhaps they were as far apart as Pinatas and Long Division? Who knows. Regardless, that's all you're getting for this ridiculous combination of misunderstanding of history and strawman you appear to have scrapped off your shoe and turned into a post.