At 11:49 AM 6/20/2007, Alfred Urrutia wrote:
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.
Right, but note that even then there were lots of people saying "hey,
wait a minute, where's the proof?" And now, with Bush's failure to
produce in mind, any future president is going to find an invasion a
tough sell without ironclad proof.
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.
I'm more worried about allegiances between Hezbollah and its sister
groups and Iran. *That* might be dangerous, but invading Iran won't
help since the radical elements aren't there. So, this is a very
serious problem, but not one that can easily lead to conventional war IMO.
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.
True. And the Guard was supposed to be elites, what a joke.
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.
Sure. I'm not arguing that we didn't think it would be a war, but
rather that it didn't turn out to be one.
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.
And there's so much corruption at the moment that their ability to
manage anything is limited. They might become a threat again, of
course, but given the pervasiveness of terrorism and the fact that
the terrorists seem to hate Russia as much as us I don't think
they'll be gearing up for war with us (or anyone else) anytime soon.
And since the terrorist threat will never go away, now that it's started...
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.
Nuke 'em all, and let God sort it out. It's getting harder and harder
to argue the point.
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.
Yeah, I know, but Dems don't have the balls to do anything more
significant (though that's a modern phenomenon; Johnson was willing
to slit throats with the best of them).
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.
Yeah, look at it. Look at the spin job that got us into this mess,
and look at the backlash once it happened. We got suckered into this
because we thought there would be no significant casualties. That's
how they sold us the war. You can't do that with a real conflict,
though, because no one in Congress will buy it.
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.
No they weren't. People were arguing against it all over the place,
but they were ignored. And again, this isn't a "real" war, not in the
sense Core was suggesting. If it was, we'd need a lot more than a
shell game to authorize it.
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.
Israel tried that last summer. It went badly for them. See, they're
surrounded by enemies and they can't toss out nukes without screwing
themselves over as well. It doesn't matter how mad they get, their
situation makes them a belligerent but largely toothless lion.
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.
True. But a large military presence does not a war make. Takes two to
tango, and all that.
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.
But we need another, comparable military to manage the war Core
talked about, and the people who have those assets aren't the ones
who want to piss us off. Rather, it's the rogue states who have
nothing to lose, and aren't a good setup for a real military conflict.
--------------------------------------------------
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
