Reply to: A croak too far

[jamesbrown]

I like my governments like I like my isotopes - stable.

Weak and stable is the new meme.

[woohoo]

You don't need a nuclear power plant to develop nuclear weapons.

I like my governments like I like my isotopes - stable.

[BlasterBates]

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.

[northernladyuk]

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.

[woohoo]

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.

[northernladyuk]

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.

[Bean]

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).

[jamesbrown]

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.

[BlasterBates]

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.

[northernladyuk]

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

[BlasterBates]

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.

[Bean]

It'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.

Not really, no.

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?

[northernladyuk]

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

It'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.

[Bean]

That 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.

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...

[BlasterBates]

Are 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

That 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.