El Destructo

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

There's a huge difference between firing a missle and building a nuclear warhead. There's not a lot a missle with no nuclear payload can do in the way of destruction.

If you want to go down that road, think of all the trouble we would have been spared if Bush 41 had finished the job in 1991.

*igJon, yes.

[Shapley]

OT,

The point is that Carter had stated that they had no missile capability after his negotiations. Then they fired the missle, with more than sufficient range to strike at Japan, exploding egg all over the face of the Clinton administration.

RE:There's not a lot a missle with no nuclear payload can do in the way of destruction.

We should inscribe on that on markers at all our National cemeteries, and perhaps at the site of the World Trade Center. I'm sure they'll all rest easier.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:If you want to go down that road, think of all the trouble we would have been spared if Bush 41 had finished the job in 1991.


:confused:

V/R
Shapley

[GreatCarouser]

It appears India's nuclear adventure started under the old Eisenhower 'Atoms for Peace' program.
A history of India's nuclear program.

[Shapley]

Many of the misinterpretations of Iraq's capabilites are result from lessons learned, perhaps incorrectly, from Pakistan's nuclear advancement.

In order to advance their capabilities without scrutiny, Pakistan arranged their movements of materials around the movement of satallite surveillance. There were several reports on this. Apparently, their primary concern was that India not be aware of their development, lest they engage in pre-emptive action to prevent them from obtaining nuclear capability. Studies of the methods used to circumvent satellite surveillance were made to determine how such development could be monitored in the future, should another nation be determined to avoid detection.

It is entirely probably that Saddam was aware of this, and used subterfuse in reverse: i.e. he wanted to appear to be developing nuclear and/or chemical weapons, even though he wasn't. He most likely preferred that his neighbors believe the capabilities existed, as a deterent to attack, as well as a deterent to uprisings that may occur from within. He may also have been testing for methods that worked, as he would know what areas the inspectors were demanding to view based on satellite information.

It's easy to look at the intelligence failures today and say that we should have known better. I'm sure they thought the same thing after Pakistan had developed their weapons. This time, they erred on the side of caution.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Shap, if you'll recall, B41 stopped short of invading Iraq - didn't feel he had a coalition consensus(which didn't stop his son), therefore, it is logical to assume if he had gone ahead and invaded Iraq, we wouldn't be in our current quagmire. A different one, perhaps, but not the one we're in right now.

What you choose to call "misinterpretation"(or is it "misunderestimation"?), I choose to call deception. If these were honest mistakes, then we would see GWB getting in front of all of the people who have suffered loss as a result of his bungling and acknowledge and apologize. All we've seen is excuse making and blame-laying, glossed over with a healthy dose of wiggling.

Bolton is a part of the mindset that has taken us off the path of justice and prosecution of the real threats to the American people, and onto the pursuit of oil and/or prominence in the "geopolitical heartland" (thanks again, Analog!). Therefore, he earns the moniker given him by Shos, and is the last person I'd want to be our representative in the UN.

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

originally posted by BigJon:
The answer for why we haven't invaded NK is simple. A million strong standing NK army. Apparently well fed and well trained too. It would be a meat grinder of proportions not seen since the peaks of WWII.

On a diversion from the main thrust of this conversation...
I find it ?amusing? that we do invade a "potential threat" because it doesnt have a strong army and does allow us (albeit intermittently) to inspect, but we dont invade a hostile nation with nuclear power (which would seem to make it a true threat) because it DOES have a strong army (which again, makes it seem more of a threat to lil ol me.).

Does anyone else find this very pragmatic approach to be as hysterically, ludicrously funny as I do?

[OperaTenor]

Yes, I couldn't find words to respond to it. I was thinking exactly along the lines you expressed.

However, I find it so ludicrous I don't believe it.

[Haggis@wk]

"coalition consensus (which didn't stop his son)"

17 unanimous UN Resolutions over a 10 year period, threatening the use of force if Iraq didn’t submit to UN demands seems to me to be a pretty solid consesus

[OperaTenor]

But without the approval from the UN for the invasion.

We had sanctions in place which were working, Saddam was most threatened by the sanctions, by all accounts. We had successfully enforced no-fly zones, and the populations under those zones did relatively well.

IMO, OFF was a mistake, even if it hadn't been subverted.

We did not have a consensus from the international community like we had in the 91 Gulf War for invading Iraq.

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

Piq,
"Does anyone else find this very pragmatic approach to be as hysterically, ludicrously funny as I do?"

We didn't invade NK for the same reason we don't invade Iran, we don't have the justifications that the 17 UN Resolutions gave us.

Would we have invaded Iraq (or NK or Iran) if we were convinced that they had nukes? Tough question, I don’t think so, but I'm probably wrong.

One thing Shape got wrong above is that the NK missile tested was a dud, upon inspection it was discovered that it was a 3 stage boost capable missile with the range to hit Hawaii and the U.S. West coast with a nuclear weapon.

Would we invade NK as long as it had the ability to hit LA (or San Diego)? Doubtful.

As an aside, everyone that yells about "going it alone" in Iraq sees no dichotomy in demanding that we engaged in bilateral negotiations with NK while ignoring all of NK’s neighbors.

From your comments Piq, it almost seems that you would have supported an invasion against some one more able to resist our invasion?

There is nothing fair about any type of armed conflict, during the opening ground war in the first Gulf War the Army used dozer blades on tanks to bury Iraqi troops alive in their defensive trenches.

War truly is hell, but if we can fight one with as few casualties as possible on our side, it makes it a little better. And in the most recent war we even took casualties among our troops to reduce or mitigate civilian casualties, something that would have been hard for me to agree with.

[OperaTenor]

How about invading Iran because they have known links to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attackers, as well as international terrorism? Are the 9/11 attacks no longer a score we wish to settle? After all, isn't this larger conflict called the "War on Terror"?

I don't think we exactly ignore the two of NK's closest neighbors. We still have troops in SK, right? And we practically fawn over China.

Based on the reasoning used for invading Iraq, Iran and NK should have been on the invasion priority list above Iraq.
Both were bigger threats to Americans, and Iran had known ties to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations. (We've had this particular debate before, so I'll leave it at that and leave the last word to you.)

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

Sun Tzu says that you do not go into battle until you are sure you cannot be defeated. To do otherwise is folly.

However, Haggis is correct, as I have stated numerous times: The U.N. resolutions gave us the authority to invade Iraq. No such resolutions exist for North Korea or Iran, nor have we given an ultimatum to either warning of the potential for war.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:
Sun Tzu says that you do not go into battle until you are sure you cannot be defeated. To do otherwise is folly.

However, Haggis is correct, as I have stated numerous times: The U.N. resolutions gave us the authority to invade Iraq. No such resolutions exist for North Korea or Iran, nor have we given an ultimatum to either warning of the potential for war.

V/R
Shapley

Really? Then I suppose our entry into WWII was folly? Our ununiformed Minutemen were fools? The Union army shouldn't have mobilized? David should have walked away from Goliath?
I suppose GWB, Cheney and Rummie are all followers of Sun Tzu.

Why are there UN resolutions regarding Iraq, but none regarding Iran or North Korea? Who was the driving force behind those resolutions? It's funny that you rest your argument on UN resolutions while holding so much disdain for the organization.

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

And here I thought you were going to give me the last word.

I doubt that the works of Sun Tzu were well known amongst the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but I do not believe they would have engaged in revolution unless they were sure they had a reasonable chance of winning.

We entered World War II because we were attacked. I'm sure the Japanese were aware of the works of Sun Tzu, and waited to launch the attack until they were confident of winning. They misjudged their opponent, which can happen in any war. There is, of course, some who believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not such a surprise, and that the U.S. had secretly prepared for war, sacrificing the ships at Pearl as a gambit to get us into a war we were prepared to win. I cannot say if this is true, but there is evidence that we were prepared and expecting to get into the conflict, and that we had a reasonable expectation to win even before and after Pearl.

I do not know if Bush himself has read Sun Tzu, but his works are standard reading in War College these days, and most of the war planners have read it. Ergo the long buildup to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We did not move in until we our forces were sufficient to ensure victory.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

No, that was Haggis. You're not off the hook. :p

I don't believe the colonists had any inkling of their chances against imperial England.

As for our reason for entering WWII, you mean we weren't attacked first in the War on Terror?!

How much have you studied the war in the Pacific? Pearl Harbor began a succession of retreats all across the Pacific. Tens of thousands of Allied troops were killed or captured, and most of our infrastrusture to wage war in the Pacific was destroyed or taken in the opening months of the war. Our first offensive act, the Doolittle Tokyo raid, was more for propanganda than strategic value, as much to bolster confidence at home than to intimidate the Japanese.
Hardly seems like a state of preparation for war to me.

Husband Kimmel, the admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl at the time of the attack, was relieved mainly becuase of his lack of preparedness.

We've won in Iraq? More people are dying these days than ever, and you say we've won?!! What, chaos?!
As for our state of preparation in Iraq, then why do we now have more troops stationed there than ever, especially since "mission accomplished"?

We've won in Afghanistan? You mean we caught UBL?!

Conventionally, winning = troops come home and don't get killed anymore.

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

originally by haggis
[qb] We didn't invade NK for the same reason we don't invade Iran, we don't have the justifications that the 17 UN Resolutions gave us.

From your comments Piq, it almost seems that you would have supported an invasion against some one more able to resist our invasion? [qb]

The UN resolutions, to my memory, said "if they didnt allow inspections". Saddam was sly enough to re-allow inspections each time. We invaded anyway. So, I'm not sure how thats relevant to our decision whether or not to invade.

No Haggis, you misunderstand. I am often very amused by the world, whether its right, wrong, left, pragmatic, pie-in-the-sky or otherwise.
It would be stupid to declare war against a stronger military power. Its also hilariously funny to ignore a strong enemy and use the claim "they are threatening us" to attack a weak enemy.

To help create the proper perspective: another example of how easily I am amused.
The claims by both sides of the "Gay Marriage" argument that "its just a word" are ROTFLO for me.
Those who want "contracts", to save the "sanctity" of the word 'marriage', claim that gays shouldnt care if they get to use the word, its just a word after all.
And those who want the right to use the word, claim their opponents shouldnt mind, because its just a word, after all.
I usually choke on whatever Im drinking, and have to leave the room to cough and laugh in private.

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:Conventionally, winning = troops come home and don't get killed anymore.

Then we still haven't won WWII, since we still have troops in Germany.

We won in Iraq in that we successfully occupied the nation, deposed the leadership, and installed a new government. I've already said that at least once in this thread. That mission was accomplished.

We won in Aghanistan on the same basis.

RE: WWII. Reread my post. I've said that I cannot say if it is true, so I won't. The key points the proponents of that theory use is the fact that there were no carriers in Pearl at the time of attack. I won't dwell on it. I'm tired of repeating myself.

The point is, when you are invaded, you have little choice but to go to war, ready or not. When you invade, however, it is folly to invade a country when you have little chance to win. Afghanistan did not invade us, but they harboured those that did. We took our time in building up the manpower and equipment necessary to ensure victory, as Sun Tzu suggests, before we invaded.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

"I don't believe the colonists had any inkling of their chances against imperial England."

Slightly different subject, but I suspect that before openly committing treason (do you know how treason before the Crown was punished in those days???) our forefathers measured their chances.

As it was, "Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War."

Pretty strong stuff for a group of mostly wealthy white guys who, had they done nothing, were guaranteed an incredibly privileged life for them and their descendents.

What motivated them to do that? And then having committed treason and winning, rejected the chance to set up a new Monarchy with them filling the roles as new Earls and Dukes?

The debt the free world, and eventually the not-so-free world, owes those men is incalculable.

Whenever I think about the Declaration of Independence and all that flowed from that first brave step I often wonder what motivated those men. I’m not sure I would have been so noble.

[Shapley]

"We must hang together or we shall surely hang, seperately." is, I believe, the quote attributed to Ben Franklin as he signed the Declaration of Independence. I think they knew full well what they were getting into. I'm sure they thought that victory was within their grasp, before making so bold a move as to put their names on their own death-warrant.

As for World War II, I am well aware we got our hair mussed, but the point is we were preparing for a war we claimed to want no part of.

The keels for four Iowa Class battleships had been laid a full year before Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Wasp and the Hornet were commissioned within a year prior to the attack, the Essex was under construction. The carriers were strategically missing from Pearl at the time of the attack.

Pearl Harbour was unprepared for the attack, but that doesn't mean the attack was unexpected. I'm not saying we knew the day, time, or place of the attack, but we knew the Japanese were at war, and had designs on the entire Pacific Ocean. An attack was only a matter of time, and we were preparing for it. I'm sure it was our intention not to get into the war until we were sure of victory. I can only assume the attack on Pearl Harbour altered our timetable, as I have no knowledge of what that timetable had been, if in fact it had existed.

V/R
Shapley