Why does everyone assume that someone like Iraq invading Israel is such a bad thing? It sure seems they're powerful enough to take care of themselves. They don't have the long supply lines we do, they're a nuclear power able to pretty much level any Arab nation, and past countries that have taken them on have ended up with a huge dose of humility.
I think our initial mistake was Gulf War I. Had we simply let things play their course and took the economic hit from the oil instability, maybe the Mideast would've turned out just fine on its own. It's very likely the House of Saud would've been toppled by Hussein and in invasion of the Muslim holy land would've sent the rest of the Muslim world against him including the Bin Laden types. We could've used that diversion. Who knows who would've ended up on top with that exchange but both sides would've suffered major losses especially in the extremist population. Bottom line though would be that it'd be suicidal for Saddam. Even with his supposed might, I don't think he could've sustained the attack against such numbers of other countries, especially the ones opposed to his secular government style.
Now the wrath of the fundamentalist Muslims is aimed at someone other than the US and Israel. Hell, it's even possible that the survivalist instincts of some of the more radical regimes might even feel it necessary to mend bridges with Israel to ask for help with their defense.
So let's say worst case happens and Saddam is able to topple his neighbors easily and sets his sites on Israel, starts launching missiles, gas, nasty stuff their way. Israel's hand is forced and they nuke the hell out of Iraq. We certainly would if we were attacked that way. Seems the war ends at that point and the Arab world is given this big dose of reality just as the Japanese were at the end of WWII.
Sometimes real societal change doesn't occur until situations hit rock bottom. I think Israel hurling nukes at one of their neighbors is going to happen eventually and maybe it would've been better had it come because of the invasion of a dastardly militaristic dictator than some other perceived threat that wouldn't get more worldwide acceptance.
As for your scenario had we not invaded Iraq the 2nd time. With the number of deaths you're predicting just maybe that would've been the motivation for the Iraqi people themselves to rise up and take care of things on their own. You're just dealing in absolutes and not human nature. That's a bit tougher to pin down.
Current Events » in reply to Nobody said freedom was cheap.
re: Nobody said freedom was cheap.
The whole thread (79 posts)
- has anyone mentioned here Bush's acknowledging 30,000 Civilian casualties in Iraq?
- re: has anyone mentioned that this is hardly news?
- Never mind
- Good point but
- yes those elections are very good news. Think of this though:
- I've got a better one.
- Freedom and democracy...and where would that be?
- that's not really the point here
- "Could anyone still say, 'this is worth 30,000 deaths'?"
- Get real.
- that's not really the point here
- Freedom and democracy...and where would that be?
- re: See the alternate timeline and please tell me where my assumptions are wrong.
- I've got a better one.
- yes those elections are very good news. Think of this though:
- Good point but
- re: has anyone mentioned here Bush's acknowledging 30,000 Civilian casualties in Iraq?
- Well, they were going to die sometime anyway, so Bush isn't really responsible.
- "I ask merely for information......."
- Meanwhile, as the American Left desperately prays for failure...
- We know the election is going to be a success.....Katherine Harris was placed in charge...
- So which finger has the paint on it?
- Dear Tom, F*** off. (n/t)
- re: Meanwhile, as the American Left desperately prays for failure...
- Is that a purple chad? (n/t)
- Meanwhile, as the American Left desperately prays for failure...
