• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

A croak too far

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Bean View Post
    Don't think anyone has ever suggested that tbh.

    Not having a power vacuum doesn't equate to just giving power to the former tyrant's son

    As part of the 'coalition of the willing', we are party to the overall mess afterwards.

    There was always the possibility of following the UN SCs resolutions and asking everyone to support a motion for regime change and then, maybe everybody would have thought about the aftermath a little more...
    If Saddam Hussein was left in charge he would have simply carried on consolidating his power committing genocide and simply waiting for the next opportunity to develop nuclear weapons. Had he died his son would probably have taken over. He would have only been deposed by a very long and terrible bloody civil war. The best scenario would have been the terrible bloody civil war which would have been far worse than the one fought in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion as the US did at least remove all the heavy weaponry.

    I don't see how any scenario by leaving him be could have been any better however big the f** up was from the US in dealing with the aftermath.
    I'm alright Jack

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
      If Saddam Hussein was left in charge he would have simply carried on consolidating his power committing genocide and simply waiting for the next opportunity to develop nuclear weapons. Had he died his son would probably have taken over. He would have only been deposed by a very long and terrible bloody civil war. The best scenario would have been the terrible bloody civil war which would have been far worse than the one fought in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion as the US did at least remove all the heavy weaponry.

      I don't see how any scenario by leaving him be could have been any better however big the f** up was from the US in dealing with the aftermath.
      Aren't you clever with the counterfactual? Saddam was never going to get another chance to develop nuclear weapons. As for the very long and terrible bloody civil war, HELLO, THIS IS REALITY CALLING:

      Iraq profile - timeline - BBC News

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
        Aren't you clever with the counterfactual? Saddam was never going to get another chance to develop nuclear weapons. As for the very long and terrible bloody civil war, HELLO, THIS IS REALITY CALLING:

        Iraq profile - timeline - BBC News
        You mean like the weapons inspectors stopped N.Korea.

        If the war had not gone ahead it would have been abundantly clear that he could go ahead with his Nuclear weapons development just as they did in N.Korea.
        Last edited by BlasterBates; 6 October 2017, 13:58.
        I'm alright Jack

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by sasguru View Post
          And therefore perfectly judged for the majority of the country. It pressed the right buttons which is all that matters nowadays.
          Re: free market ideals, do you think the free market is working?
          Diagnosis and prognosis are two different things. The analysis was adequate, the response was incoherent. The reason that the free market isn't working in many of the areas she cited (e.g. energy, transport) is because there isn't a bloody free market! In those areas where there is some semblance of competition, HMG has thoroughly fecked it up. Take Help-to-Buy, for example; it's clearly a demand-led policy (even when restricted to new homes). A loan guarantee on the demand side of 10bn and a 2bn investment on the supply side (5k council homes per year). Utterly incoherent. May is too driven by the political wind.

          Marina Hyde was excellent in the Guardian this week. The Tories and Labour are two drunks fighting in a puddle.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
            If Saddam Hussein was left in charge he would have simply carried on consolidating his power committing genocide and simply waiting for the next opportunity to develop nuclear weapons. Had he died his son would probably have taken over. He would have only been deposed by a very long and terrible bloody civil war. The best scenario would have been the terrible bloody civil war which would have been far worse than the one fought in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion as the US did at least remove all the heavy weaponry.

            I don't see how any scenario by leaving him be could have been any better however big the f** up was from the US in dealing with the aftermath.
            Ah, so you see a definitive end as not only being possible but having already happened?

            I see the aftermath as currently ongoing, so to compare to a civil war is difficult.

            I get your point about the genocides though and there's no easy answer. Libya & Syria come to mind and both of those also caused power vacuums (in certain areas in Syria).
            Originally posted by Old Greg
            I admit I'm just a lazy, lying cretinous hypocrite and must be going deaf
            ♕Keep calm & carry on♕

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
              You mean like the weapons inspectors stopped N.Korea.
              You are not comparing like with like. The Israelis had already destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and would no doubt do so again:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

              North Korea is seen as a tougher nut to crack militarily, because of the reality or belief that North Korea has a mass of artillery on the border that could flatten large swathes of Seoul. You need to use a bit of analysis, not just make a crass comparison.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                You are not comparing like with like. The Israelis had already destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and would no doubt do so again:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

                North Korea is seen as a tougher nut to crack militarily, because of the reality or belief that North Korea has a mass of artillery on the border that could flatten large swathes of Seoul. You need to use a bit of analysis, not just make a crass comparison.
                I also think that NK has a large population, many starving, if you do win a war and destabilize the country then someone has to take responsibility for them. No one wants that hot potato.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by woohoo View Post
                  I also think that NK has a large population, many starving, if you do win a war and destabilize the country then someone has to take responsibility for them. No one wants that hot potato.
                  It's certainly a bigger economic challenge that absorbing East Germany, but maybe not so much of a challenge as 'taking responsibility' for Iraq. North Korea is a homogeneous state, so lacks the 'cultural' challenge (aka battulip crazy chaos) of Iraq.

                  More of a problem with North Korea, I think is the geopolitics, as China (and to a lesser extent Russia) doesn't want American ally Korea advancing up to the border.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                    You are not comparing like with like. The Israelis had already destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and would no doubt do so again:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

                    North Korea is seen as a tougher nut to crack militarily, because of the reality or belief that North Korea has a mass of artillery on the border that could flatten large swathes of Seoul. You need to use a bit of analysis, not just make a crass comparison.
                    They didn't have much joy in stopping Iraq develop chemical weapons. N.Korea was clean of nuclear weapons, once Obama was elected they threw out the inspectors and developed them pretty quickly.

                    Do you think Israel will stop Iran developing the bomb if they really decide to press ahead? I very much doubt it.

                    You don't need a nuclear power plant to develop nuclear weapons.
                    I'm alright Jack

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
                      You don't need a nuclear power plant to develop nuclear weapons.
                      I like my governments like I like my isotopes - stable.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X