Originally posted by woohoo
View Post
- 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!
Reply to: A croak too far
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "A croak too far"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by northernladyuk View PostYou 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by woohoo View PostI 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladyuk View PostYou 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostYou mean like the weapons inspectors stopped N.Korea.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostIf 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 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).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostAnd 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?
Marina Hyde was excellent in the Guardian this week. The Tories and Labour are two drunks fighting in a puddle.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladyuk View PostAren'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
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostIf 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.
Iraq profile - timeline - BBC News
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bean View PostDon'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...
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladyuk View PostIt's like Brexit. You need to understand the alternatives. I don't much care for the EU (although I'm not hugely bothered, and I can see some positives), but the alternative is madness.
Unilaterally removing a mad dictator, hell bent on consolidating his power, cracking down on human rights and not having any credible plan for the aftermath
EU, ever-closer union with QMV, no condemnation of violence in Catalonia, EU won't talk about trade until the exact divorce bill is agreed causing uncertainty
Oh wait, you are right
On a serious note though, surely if the alternative is madness, by definition, you should actually care for the EU?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bean View PostAlso,
A bad man with weapons removed from power = normally good
No plan for after removing him, leading to a power vacuum, that allows extremist/terrorist groups to fill it = very very bad
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostThat might be true to some extent but lets face it, not really within the UK's power. The US f**ed up big time. I completely disagree that it would have been better with Husseins son in charge, you think Sadam is a nutcase.
So was it the right decision, yes it was, we now don't have Trump, Israel and Iraq in some sort of stand off. could have a civil war been avoided, I don't know but yes the US screwed up. If Blair had stood on the sidelines it would have been even worse.
Would have Margaret Thatcher done it better ? no way.
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...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bean View PostAre you talking about Iraq wrt Nukes? Why?
BBC NEWS | Politics | Timeline: The 45-minute claim
Also,
A bad man with weapons removed from power = normally good
No plan for after removing him, leading to a power vacuum, that allows extremist/terrorist groups to fill it = very very bad
So was it the right decision, yes it was, we now don't have Trump, Israel and Iraq in some sort of stand off. could have a civil war been avoided, I don't know but yes the US screwed up. If Blair had stood on the sidelines it would have been even worse.
Would have Margaret Thatcher done it better ? no way.Last edited by BlasterBates; 6 October 2017, 13:07.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Gary Lineker and HMRC broker IR35 settlement on the hush Today 09:10
- IT contractor jobs market sinks to four-year low in November Yesterday 09:30
- Joke of the Day Dec 9 14:57
- How company directors can offset employer NIC rising to 15% Dec 9 10:30
- Contractors, seen Halifax’s 18-month fixed rate remortgage? Dec 5 09:59
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Dec 4 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
Leave a comment: