Chris Campbell wrote:
No, we really don't. We have a bunch of them, but we don't have enough
to make something like this happen. Witness Bush's approval rating;
unless he really managed to sell the conflict -- something like
Afghanistan after 9/11 -- it just won't happen (at least not in the
near future, and probably not even within our lifetimes).
But witness Bush's moves when he first came into office. He got
whatever he wanted, war powers, because "you can't do that to us",
right? Yes, *now* he can't get a cup of coffee without Senate approval
but back then? When everyone took his word for it that Saddam had WMDs
and was months away from making them/using them? No problem, Boss, go
kick ass. It can happen too easily if you generate enough fear.
Yes, but they'd have to be suicidal to challenge us, which is the
problem. You need a country whacked in the head enough to stir up the
hornets' nest, and you need another one hawkish enough to make it
happen. I really don't think that combination exists anymore (not even
with Iran; sure, they might get a nuke, but we aren't the ones they'd
be targetting with it. And frankly, I just don't think they hate
Israel enough to fall on their swords like that. Syria might, and of
course the various radical groups would, but Syria doesn't have the
tech and fighting the terrorist groups isn't really war in the sense
Core was meaning).
I agree. Except that I can see a combo threat. Right, Syria by itself
can't force it, Iran by itself can't force it. But if some common goal
brought them together? Psychos and weapons, just add water.
Not in any meaningful sense it wasn't. Yes, the U.K. and the French
and such were there, but that was a matter of face more than anything
else. It boiled down to us vs. Iraq, and Iraq didn't count.
It's obvious *now* that that's what it boiled down to. Back then, we
needed the U.K.'s help (they provided a full armored division plus jet
bombers) and the French (the Foreign Legion, their best fighting force
because it's comprised of non-French, hahaaha). It's the opposite of
the current war - back then we assumed that it would be a fierce fight
against well trained, well armed Iraqi troops and Republican Guard.
Nobody was expecting them to surrender that quickly and in those
numbers. Compare to the current war where the retards in charge assumed
that it would be a cakewalk and after we stomped the shit out of them
with zero losses that the Iraqi citizens themselves would complete the
takeover. Back then, we expected a full-scale war. There was talk of
*a draft* should the war go too long. You don't need to worry about a
draft if you think you're fighting a bunch of clowns. At the time, 4
largest army and all that, we were expecting a true war. Glad it didn't
happen and those guys surrendered so easily but that was a surprise.
It actually involved significant military forces from more than two
countries, though. The Gulf War didn't, at least not in any meaningful
sense of the term.
As I said, in hindsight you're right. At the time, though, we had a
combined force that I believe was still smaller than Iraq's. We were
worried about a long drawn-out conflict. Otherwise, if the
contributions were supposed to be symbolic, we could have just accepted
Britain's jets and some cooks from the French and been done with it. We
were actually annoyed with Japan because they'd only supply money, not
troops. For what? Oh, for a massive land war (so we thought).
Personally, I was hoping that the Germans would have joined in and it
would have been the world's largest capture the flag game, with a
competition to see which of the main tank units (M-1, Challenger,
Leopard II) was the most effective. A World Cup of tanks. The French
MBT wasn't ready then, unfortunately.
Yeah, and the infrastructure is bad enough that I don't think he could
do much. The EU's in better shape than Russia is, so presenting a
credible military threat is probably a no-go (and they'd have to be
antsy with China sitting there, being an unknown quantity). It's not
impossible, I guess, but as you say it's unlikely.
True. Russia still has a great military but recent setbacks have shown
it wasn't as lethal as we feared.
But the problem is that they can't really do anything other than futz
around in the Middle East, and as we've already amply demonstrated we
don't really care what happens there. It's a conflict that isn't
really in danger of spreading, because few countries in the region
have any outside allies (and those who do aren't willing to get
involved). So people die in droves and nobody cares and the whole mess
is more or less self-contained.
I agree, it couldn't really spread and Europe could deal with it. But
worrying about a spreading conflict isn't the only reason to ship
armored divisions there and enter into a real war. A Divine mission
(this must be done for the good of the world) would be an acceptable
reason, given the right explanation and PR. No way the Republicans here
can get that off the ground now, not for about 20 years. *But* that is
assuming our list of reasons doesn't change. Another 9/11 changes
everything. You'd have every American not in L.A. and New York
screaming for turning the Middle East into a glowing glass crater.
But nobody cares! We sat and watched as millions of Rwandans died and
did nothing to stop it. Same story with the Congo and West Africa and
Zimbabwe. Right now it's happening in Ethiopia. We just don't give a
damn, so war isn't really a possibility there (Somalia's an exception
here, but I remain unclear on why we bothered).
You get a Democrat controlled government, you'll see "care" grow.
Bosnia, Somalia. True, not wars in the large-scale sense, and certainly
not our wars like Iraq, but that was caring. We sent our guys there.
Bureaucracy makes that unlikely, though. In the days of kings it was a
simpler matter, as one mad king could start a war all by his lonesome.
Now we need consensus by those in power, and support by those
controlling the purse strings. Starting a war is a much more involved
affair than it used to be, and this is true in any industrialized
country (not in developing countries, of course, but none of them are
sophisticated enough that war with the developed world is really
possible).
Bureaucracy doesn't make it unlikely. Look what just happened here.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove. Below them, stooges. Below that,
appointees on their side. What did that get us? A one-sided
government. Republican controlled. And boy did they ever control it.
One or two good lies, trick us into approving war, then it's too late.
Any attempts to slow it down are slapped aside. For a while they could
literally do whatever they wanted. You don't like it, you're
pro-terrorist. Not a patriot. Now, thankfully, all their fuckups and
lies are coming to the surface. Now they're being investigated,
denied. But it took, what, 6 years?!?! How many dead, on both sides?
How bad is our rep with the world? But they wanted a war so they
manufactured one. It can *certainly* be done with the right pieces in
place. Look how Rumsfeld took over the Pentagon, how the CIA was
working for Bush. All the normal checks against retard wanting a war
were neutralized. Easy to say now that it's been exposed. Back then
everyone was on board.
Israel doesn't have the resolve to go that far, though. They know that
even suggesting the idea would get them in so much trouble, both with
us and with everyone around them, that they'll never try it. Iran
might try it, but as you say that would be a tremendously unpopular
decision with the populace. So where does that leave us? Status quo.
All Israel needs is their own 9/11. Make the Israelis so infuriated, so
filled with rage and revenge that they no longer listen to reason and go
off to wipe out every bastard involved. Low low odds but terrorists are
the wild cards. And since Middle Eastern countries aren't trying too
hard to rid themselves of those psychos, they will be blamed for
supporting such an attack. War.
Terrorism might yet bring nukes into play, but that will be the sort
of thing we saw in Afghanistan -- the "no really, we're not kidding
around, we're going to stop you and we have the whole freakin' world
on our side" idea -- not war per se. It certainly won't be a
protracted conflict, since we can conquer and occupy any rogue state
in the blink of an eye *if we're actually committed to doing so.*
Agreed, none of their armies are worth much. But actually doing it
would involve our army and support. A large scale war in terms of troop
numbers and equipment. Certainly no special forces only light infantry
deal.
What we really have in Iraq is all of our liqued assets committed --
the reserve troops we have available for Mickey-Mouse stuff like rogue
states. We still have troops stationed in bases all around the world,
along with our navy and such. So we can actually fight a war, if we're
talking about blowing stuff up. But blowing stuff up and occupying
conquered territory are two different things; the one is simple, but
as we've seen the latter is more problematic.
True.
And that's a part of history you just can't ignore. With WWII in our
distant memory and Iraq in the here and now, nobody's going to war
anytime soon. A century from now, maybe, if the rogue states gain some
power somehow or if our resource crunch bites us in the ass before we
can mainstream alternatives and we fall apart as a result (it's
possible). But barring some pretty radical events large scale war as
Core described it is pretty much a thing of the past. It's all
terrorism and police actions now, and that won't change.
Ya, it would take something drastic. Like another 9/11. And guess
which country is the most hated country on Earth? The one with the most
dangerous military.
South Africa's never been a ray of sunshine. Don't forget, this used
to be a country with state mandated racism that made the U.S. of the
past century look like a walk in the park by comparison. When that
went away, the government of the time (which knew what it was doing,
even if it was morally reprehensible) was replaced by one that was
inexperienced and whose reach exceeded its grasp. As such, chaos.
It's not all bad, though; Botswana and Namibia (in the south at least)
are doing okay. Maybe Tanzania and a couple others too thanks to all
the tourism. But for the most part, eh.
Ya, no garden spot to be sure but now it's a goatfuck in that whole
region. I wouldn't want to even fly over it.
Alfred.
--
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Success is not no violence."
- President Bush, on trying to find a way to be able to claim future
progress and success in Iraq without having to achieve the
complete victory he used to state as the only acceptable goal.
Alfred Urrutia - Digital Domain - 310.314.2800 x2267 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--------------------------------------------------
The Gundam Mailing List MK-II [email protected]
Archives: http://www.gundam.com/gml
Help: Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this in
the BODY: help list
