Iraq's provincial elections looking promising

[HoreTore]

North Korea has demonstrated the ability to strike both Japan and South Korea with a ballistic missile. They also are a (minor) nuclear power. Put the two together and you have loads of fun.

So what you're saying is that the US army is too weak and incompetent to even deal with an impoverished nation led by a rabid lunatic?

[Vladimir]

So what you're saying is that the US army is too weak and incompetent to even deal with an impoverished nation led by a rabid lunatic?

Why do you hate freedom?

[LittleGrizzly]

It's clear he wanted to develop them.

As does any tinpot dictator, what is also clear is that he was nowhere near developing such weapons...

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course I don't think anyone should support all or any war. None of us here get to choose which ones we want to start. However, one should stick with their friends and allies in any fight and not want to start another one while complaining we didn't finish the job in the first one.

The wording onfused me, i agree somewhat with your assessment though, we broke it... we fix it...

[HoreTore]

Why do you hate freedom?

They tell me it's because I'm a dirty freedom-hating, baby-eating commie-terrorist....

[Crazed Rabbit]

So what you're saying is that the US army is too weak and incompetent to even deal with an impoverished nation led by a rabid lunatic?

The people of Seoul might not like us declaring war on the north. Do you know how much artillery he's got pointed at their city?

And it seems NKorea is more likely to use getting nukes as a bargaining chip for more aid, instead of handing them out to Islamic extremists.

And even assuming Saddam could be toppled by rebellion, what do you think would happen afterwards? Maybe a sectarian civil war, but with no US around to stop it?

CR

[HoreTore]

The people of Seoul might not like us declaring war on the north. Do you know how much artillery he's got pointed at their city?

So you do believe that the US army is too weak and incompetent to launch a successful war against a small impoverished third-world nation?

And it seems NKorea is more likely to use getting nukes as a bargaining chip for more aid, instead of handing them out to Islamic extremists.

You still believe Saddam vaxed OBL's backside every thursday night after supper, eh?

And even assuming Saddam could be toppled by rebellion, what do you think would happen afterwards? Maybe a sectarian civil war, but with no US around to stop it?

How many gazillions have you spent on the war by now? With that kind of money, you could've bought Saddam 10 times and still buy a third Hummer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you do believe that the US army is too weak and incompetent to launch a successful war against a small impoverished third-world nation?

You, sir, deserve an award for missing the point. We could crush Nkorea, but in the first few minutes of the war they'd rain a huge amount of artillery (and maybe a nuke) on Seoul.

You still believe Saddam vaxed OBL's backside every thursday night after supper, eh?

Again with a pathetic strawman. Are you saying Saddam was not more likely to give out WMDs to terrorists (this is in view of the opinions people had before the start of the war in 2003, that he actually had WMDs)?

How many gazillions have you spent on the war by now? With that kind of money, you could've bought Saddam 10 times and still buy a third Hummer.

Buy him off? Support him and his cruel regime? Aren't lefties always complaining about us doing that? Don't they generally point to the deals we made in the 1980s with Iraq as some sort of great 'gotcha' moment?

Um, the sectarian civil war happened anyway, even with our troops around to stop it.

Yes, my point was, unlike in Horetore's surreal world, the US was around to eventually stop it. What if we hadn't been there?

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

HoreTore, I am deeply surprised by your arguments in this thread. Let me therefore take them on face value (rather than on my suspicion you are playing Devil's Advocate).

I am sure you understand that the kind of regime change you propose violates international law as surely as a tank-driven invasion. However repulsive the regime, it is up to the people of that state to change their destiny - not well-meaning do-gooders or greedy imperialists. Real freedom only arises in a people that has gained it themselves.

The kind of meddling you propose has a long history - and had been a favoured tactic of the United States before the neo-cons decided that the tank option seemed more honest and quick. The method's record is not exactly stellar - and indeed, Saddam Hussein was one of its most outstanding alumni before Kuwait. The "revolutions" you advocate, being driven from outside, have outside interests as their goal, not the freedom of the people to choose their own government - a choice invariably posing a threat to the vested interests because the people rarely read the script. Thus, a convenient dictator, willing to do the bidding of the sponsor state in exchange for shiny military vehicles, a Gilbert and Sullivan uniform and assorted gold-encrusted palaces, is thereby enthroned.

Thus those who propose enforced regime change to uphold human rights invariably find themselves with a significantly worse result.

Of course, the real challenge is the argument as to whether sanctions and other non-violent interventions may also fall into this category. But that's a different thread.

[LittleGrizzly]

Are you saying Saddam was not more likely to give out WMDs to terrorists

Saddam would not have given WMD's to his enemies like Osama Bin Laden

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are you saying Saddam was not more likely to give out WMDs to terrorists

Saddam would not have given WMD's to his enemies like Osama Bin Laden

Nobody said it would be Al Queda.

You are, of course, correct in that Saddam's regime and the AQ network were as minimally connected as Middle East politics would allow. The one AQ afiliated group and a few mid-level meetings were the absolute minimum sop that Saddam could throw their way in order to make sure that Saddam's own regime was not targeted.

Saddam's support of terrorism was largely financial and mostly directed at the West Bank and Gaza so that he could claim a few "the greater cause" points with those people who'd buy that line of hooey.

If he had decided to provide a bomb to anyone, it would have been Hamas and not AQ. More likely, he'd have kept any nukes for himself to add to his own power -- but might have provided the materials for a "dirty bomb" to Hamas or a Hamas splinter since those byproducts are less traceable to the source than are the refined materials used in true nuclear weapons. Saddam would not have provided a true nuke to strike Israel when Mossad and the US DIA would quickly trace it back to his reactors....he'd have known the response he faced.

However, the other sorts of WMD's -- weaponized anthrax, chemical agents and the like -- would have been easier to provide to surrogates like a Hamas splinter etc. Saddam may well have been willing to do so (though he would have been unable, since his people were only TELLING him they'd kept the programs going in secret without, apparently, actually doing much -- pity we bought the story told to us by defectors trying to win asylum in the USA without getting corroboration).

[Lemur]

And even assuming Saddam could be toppled by rebellion, what do you think would happen afterwards? Maybe a sectarian civil war, but with no US around to stop it?

Um, the sectarian civil war happened anyway, even with our troops around to stop it.

That said, I don't believe Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam anytime soon. These creaky petro-dictatorships are surprisingly hardy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That said, I don't believe Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam anytime soon. These creaky petro-dictatorships are surprisingly hardy.

Concur. The two brothers weren't the strongman their father was, but they'd have kept the lid on for quite a while longer using a sort of Doug and Dinsdale Piranha teamwork effort. Besides, after the rising in 1991 to which the USA provided support in the form of a hearty "Good luck!" much of the opposition was understandably reluctant to tangle with the Saddamists. Absent Gulf II, they would have had to assume that the USA and the rest would not support them.

[HoreTore]

That said, I don't believe Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam anytime soon. These creaky petro-dictatorships are surprisingly hardy.

It's amazing what money can buy you. Especially trillions of dollars.

But yeah, the US did screw up big time after the first war. But there was more than just a tiny spark that allowed that rebellion to take place. So what could've been done, was:

1. Befriend the opposition. Make them trust you. That, of course, means that you have to be sincere, without any plans for personal gain.
2. Throw buckets of money at them, to arm them and allow them to spread propaganda, etc etc. The usual stuff.
3. When things blow up, offer them any help they ask for.

The biggest deterrent to an Iraqi revolution wasn't a strong Saddam, he was a kitten as far as dictators go in his later years. The biggest problem was that the trust the opposition had in the rest of the world was blown after the first war. But that's certainly no impossible obstacle.

EDIT: Gah, have you all lost your faith in the potency of democracy and freedom? Why do you doubt peoples willingness to fight for it?

Saddam was a Louis XVI without the foreign support. And we all know what happened to him, don't we?