General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuHo View Post
I'm not really claiming that either. I just find it really fucking odd that you're trying to explain this through means that aren't there.
"Means that aren't there"? I knew back in 91 that it wasn't over simply because the 24/7 news channels started occasionally covering things other than the gulf war. Do I really need to justify a hunch? It was an educated hunch...but based on information that was available to anyone. Guess I just interpret things differently than you do?
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-20-2010, 10:20 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#226  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
"Means that aren't there"? I knew back in 91 that it wasn't over simply because the 24/7 news channels started occasionally covering things other than the gulf war. Do I really need to justify a hunch? It was an educated hunch...but based on information that was available to anyone. Guess I just interpret things differently than you do?

Well if you knew it, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to say there's some "logical" reasoning behind that one. Something that would justify the guesstimate not being NK, but Iraq.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 04-21-2010, 01:46 AM Straw Man is online now  
Reply With Quote
#227  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuHo View Post
Well if you knew it, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to say there's some "logical" reasoning behind that one. Something that would justify the guesstimate not being NK, but Iraq.
Kim Jong IL may be just as nutty as any dictator in the world, but my gut feeling is that he isn't nutty enough to completely piss off his only ally in the region which is China. That's exactly what would happen if NK moved beyond useless saber rattling and started actually attacking their neighbors. Of course this could happen in the future as he slips further into old age and his mental situation deteriorates...but I don't think so. His successor might be something to watch out for however..

Saddam on the other hand had actively gone to war with his neighbors as recently as the 80's and 90's, and even though his military may have seemed weak by western standards..it was the strongest in the region other than Iran. Saddam didn't care about pissing off allies since his ultimate goal was to unite the middle east under his rule (as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar or Hammurabi)...and then eventually using the combined might to wipe Israel off the map. Could he have succeeded even without intervention from the west? Very doubtful, but the attempt would have caused plenty of chaos in the region. Was he the most dangerous dictator in the world? I don't know...but at the time I did feel like he was the most likely to stir up shit sooner rather than later.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-21-2010, 09:11 AM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#228  

Gibonius
 
There's no evidence that Saddam was dumb enough to attack anybody else in the region after getting owned in 1991. He attacked Kuwait because he thought the West wouldn't interfere with him, we proved him wrong. After that lesson, and the destruction of Iraq's military that came along with it, it wasn't likely he would go again since the consequences were rather obvious.
Old 04-21-2010, 09:33 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#229  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
There's no evidence that Saddam was dumb enough to attack anybody else in the region after getting owned in 1991. He attacked Kuwait because he thought the West wouldn't interfere with him, we proved him wrong. After that lesson, and the destruction of Iraq's military that came along with it, it wasn't likely he would go again since the consequences were rather obvious.
Where is the evidence that he wouldn't attack his neighbors again? If he had no recent history of doing so then I would agree there is no evidence. Once again (for the umpteenth time in this thread) I'm not making a case for the justification of the 03 invasion....just saying that I thought that some sort of military action would happen eventually after the 91 cease fire..
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-21-2010, 12:01 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#230  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Where is the evidence that he wouldn't attack his neighbors again? If he had no recent history of doing so then I would agree there is no evidence. Once again (for the umpteenth time in this thread) I'm not making a case for the justification of the 03 invasion....just saying that I thought that some sort of military action would happen eventually after the 91 cease fire..

Well, I don't think I can find compelling evidence that you wouldn't attack your neighbour (even if you did have a skirmish with him over some lawn chairs in 1994), but I don't think that justifies me blowing up your house now does it?

This is probably the part where things like oil should be mentioned, but people don't seem to laugh as much as they did in 2004 now do they...
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 04-22-2010, 02:07 PM Straw Man is online now  
Reply With Quote
#231  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Where is the evidence that he wouldn't attack his neighbors again? If he had no recent history of doing so then I would agree there is no evidence. Once again (for the umpteenth time in this thread) I'm not making a case for the justification of the 03 invasion....just saying that I thought that some sort of military action would happen eventually after the 91 cease fire..

You're asking me to prove a negative?

The logic here is that Saddam got his ass kicked in 1991 and wasn't stupid enough to go out and attack someone else and force the West to remove him for good. There was no evidence that Saddam had any plans (or even the capacity) to invade anyone, so other than "Saddam attacked Kuwait ten years ago," what reason is there to expect he'd do it again?
Old 04-22-2010, 03:01 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#232  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
You're asking me to prove a negative?

The logic here is that Saddam got his ass kicked in 1991 and wasn't stupid enough to go out and attack someone else and force the West to remove him for good. There was no evidence that Saddam had any plans (or even the capacity) to invade anyone, so other than "Saddam attacked Kuwait ten years ago," what reason is there to expect he'd do it again?
So, having the largest standing military in the region (not the most powerful...that would be Israel) doesn't qualify as having the capacity? Even though the WMD thing turned out to be a dud....kicking out the UN weapons inspector while simultaneously financially supporting suicide bombers and taking potshots at the UN forces enforcing the no-fly zone sounds like he was stupid enough to me. Don't get me wrong, I didn't understand the timing of the Iraq invasion (I felt we needed to concentrate on Afghanistan) and didn't really see the urgency until all the WMD stuff started coming out. On the other hand, if the 03 invasion had never happened and the UN was willing to ignore his defiance... I do think at some point (probably around now) Saddam would have resumed stirring up shit in the region forcing some kind of action.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-22-2010, 03:56 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#233  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
So, having the largest standing military in the region (not the most powerful...that would be Israel) doesn't qualify as having the capacity? Even though the WMD thing turned out to be a dud....kicking out the UN weapons inspector while simultaneously financially supporting suicide bombers and taking potshots at the UN forces enforcing the no-fly zone sounds like he was stupid enough to me. Don't get me wrong, I didn't understand the timing of the Iraq invasion (I felt we needed to concentrate on Afghanistan) and didn't really see the urgency until all the WMD stuff started coming out. On the other hand, if the 03 invasion had never happened and the UN was willing to ignore his defiance... I do think at some point (probably around now) Saddam would have resumed stirring up shit in the region forcing some kind of action.

There's a pretty big different between occasionally shooting at planes in Iraq's airspace and actually invading another country again. He knew we stopped him in 1991, he had every reason to think we'd do it again and that would likely result in him getting taken out. But shooting at planes? Maybe he could have gotten away with that, or kicking out the inspectors. North Korea has booted inspectors plenty of times, so has Iran.

I mean, it's solidly in the land of the hypothetical. Maybe he would have stirred enough enough trouble to warrant an invasion, eventually. But that wasn't the case in 2003, and we know the WMD case was drastically overblown, probably intentionally. We also know the catastrophic effect fighting two wars has had on our military and on the real fight in Afghanistan. History will judge, but it was pretty costly for an optional war.
Old 04-22-2010, 06:20 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#234  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:37 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.