War on Iraq

Remove all ads!

I thought about posting this on the other threads but I felt that it might be off topic. My question is: Would the US be as aggressive towards Iraq if Iraq had the same military capability as the US? I mean, the US and its allies are counting on a short war with minimal casualties especially on their side. But what if Saddam could SURELY inflict massive damage? Would the US go after say Britain, if for argument's sake, it was like Iraq?

I got these thoughts after reading comments on the other threads that the US only does what it wants because it is a superpower. Would it go after states like Iraq whether or not they can actually fight back or not?

I hope you got the point of my question.

 

I doubt America would go after anything too big. Methinks they prefer the short, simple and less bloody war to fighting hand to hand every step of the way.
So in answer to your question, probably not.

 

BTA,

Wouldn't the stakes be higher if the rogue state were much stronger? The threat would be greater.

dmc,

That's an interesting take on the matter. I don't think that point has been brought up before.

[ February 27, 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: Charlie ]

 

N.Korea is a lot tougher fish to fry than Iraq, therefore the is the risk for military conflict alot lesser there. The US would win without a question but the cost would be huge and the risk of nukes in S.Korea and Japan is not very appealing.

 

According to the director of the CIA, who testified before Congress a couple of weeks ago, we don't just have to worry about nukes hitting S. Korea and Japan. He testified that North Korea has sufficient ballistic technology to detonate a nuclear warhead on the West Coast of the United States itself.

Yeah, so I don't think we'll be invading them anytime soon.

 

The whole point of American foreign policy is to stop the opposition before that opposition gets big enough to seriously threaten the U.S. If the North Koreans really have a missile, right now, that is capable of hitting the West, they've failed. All the more reason to stop Saddam before HE gets weapons capable of hitting the US.

Chinca has a horrible human rights record, probably worse than Iraq's. But all we see from the U.S. is diplomacy with those fellows behind the Bamboo curtain, for some pretty obvious reasons (Last I heard, the Chinese have the world's largest air force). The U.S. has no similar compelling reason to be diplomatic with Saddam, though. I agree with them -- deal with the devil you can!

 

So, are we in agreement that the U.S. wants to invade Iraq not only because Saddam is an evil man but because he is an evil man AND he can't really retaliate?

Perhaps that is why certain people don't like Bush. They sense something amiss in his rhetoric. He takes the moral high ground with Iraq but faced with a more powerful force he probably would take a different tack.

 

the chinese have the worlds largest millitary period.
but then, it really doesnt matter how large your millitary is, throwing numbers of troops at a problem doesnt always work (america's tactic - they plan to use 220000 troops in iraq, dwarfing iraq's millitary), weve seen it in the past, vietnam, the viet cong were really no match for the US millitary, but they fought and won, japan in ww2 were comparably smaller then the US, they give a bloody fight.

what im trying to say is, never underestimate the underdog.

i noticed someone mentioned about removing opposition before they could offer opposition, i feel that is wrong because it certainly isnt the moral high ground. you cant go around the streets and arrest a seedy looking person just because they may become a criminal, people and indeed countries are innocent of an action until it has been carried out, thie policy of preemption is only going to make things worse, because countries will try to preempt the preemption.

 

Saddam is innocent?

 

he is innocent of until proven guilty, it has not been proved that saddam has weapons of mass destruction, there is however proof that he doesnt.

 

Show it to me.

Saddam is guilty of using biological agents on his own people. He is guilty of attacking other countries with no provocation. He is guilty of not living up to his agreements after the Gulf War -- halting the inspection process. I could go on... anyone else want to fill in details? How can anyone say Saddam Hussein is innocent?

 

I think that what Shoshino might mean is that Saddam is innocent right now of the act of having WMD's. That is he claims to have destroyed them all, the inspectors after the war couldnt find any and the current inspectors have yet to find any. He may be hiding and evading but up until they do find a big juicy batch of ready to go superbacterias he is 'innocent'. If that term is applicable to such a horror of a human being.

 

thank you, someone sees where im going