Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?
07 February 2003, 11:00 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?
by Ira Chernus
Have your heard of Harlan Ullman? Everyone in the White House and the Pentagon has. They may very well follow his plan for war in Iraq. He wants to do to Baghdad what we did to Hiroshima.
Ullman is what they call a “defense intellectual.” He was the Navy's “head of extended planning” and taught at the National War College. One of his students was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who says he “raised my vision several levels.”
What Powell and everyone in the Bush administration sees now is Ullman’s vision for high-tech war. He calls it “rapid dominance,” or “shock and awe.” The idea is to scare the enemy to death. To win, you don’t need to inflict physical pain and destruction. Just the fear of pain, and the massive confusion it creates, is enough.
Ullman wants the U.S. to (in his words) “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” “This ability to impose massive shock and awe, in essence to be able to 'turn the lights on and off' of an adversary as we choose, will so overload the perception, knowledge and understanding of that adversary that there will be no choice except to cease and desist or risk complete and total destruction."
Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples’ neurological systems, “to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."
When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.
The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."
Ullman is sure it will work as well in 2003 as it did in 1945: “You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes." "Super tools and weapons -- information-age equivalents of the atomic bomb -- have to be invented," he wrote in the Economic Times. "As the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome.”
When he first invented “rapid dominance,” Ullman talked about an “eight-level hierarchy of shock and awe,” with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the top. Now, it seems, that’s where he wants to start.
Is the Hiroshima model just a metaphor? Ullman recently wrote that one way to “shock and awe” Saddam is to remind him that the U.S. has “certain weapons” that can destroy deeply buried facilities. That’s a not-even-thinly-veiled reference to the newest kind of nuclear weapons, the B-61 “bunker-busters.” L.A. Times columnist William Arkin has confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to use “bunker-busters” against Iraq. That would “break down the firewall separating nuclear weapons from everything else,” Arkin warns, and “forever pit the Arab and Islamic world against us.”
Suppose we drop the nuke in the wrong place? Even Harlan Ullman admits it could easily happen: “Of course, there will always be intelligence gaps, and no solution is perfect.” But that’s just the point. “The threat would be a Damoclean sword that might or might not descend.” In other words, the fear of nukes falling who-knows-where would scare them into surrendering without a fight. Let other Islamic nations get as angry as they like. We’ll just shock and awe them too.
And why not North Korea, while we’re at it? Ullman wants a nuclear threat there, if North Korean leaders don’t heel to U.S. commands: “To remind the North of its vulnerability, one or more Trident ballistic submarines could be permanently assigned to target North Korea.” Tridents carry 240 nuclear warheads each. One Trident might not be enough, it seems. When you use shock and awe, you use it big-time.
So here we are, preparing to destroy a huge modern city, kill tens of thousands, and threaten nuclear attack -- all against people who have not fired a single bullet at us. Yes, it’s about oil. But it’s also about shock and awe, putting on a terrifying show for the whole world to see.
If all this leaves you in shock and awe, you have had your vision raised several levels too. You see what Ullman, Powell, and all the Bushies see: the U.S. frightening the whole world so badly that no one will dare fire a single bullet at us. Let them be as angry as they like, just so they know who is the meanest, toughest son of a bitch on the global block.
That is now becoming the essence of U.S. foreign policy. And they seriously believe it will put an end to war. I suppose the Romans believed it too.
by Ira Chernus
Have your heard of Harlan Ullman? Everyone in the White House and the Pentagon has. They may very well follow his plan for war in Iraq. He wants to do to Baghdad what we did to Hiroshima.
Ullman is what they call a “defense intellectual.” He was the Navy's “head of extended planning” and taught at the National War College. One of his students was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who says he “raised my vision several levels.”
What Powell and everyone in the Bush administration sees now is Ullman’s vision for high-tech war. He calls it “rapid dominance,” or “shock and awe.” The idea is to scare the enemy to death. To win, you don’t need to inflict physical pain and destruction. Just the fear of pain, and the massive confusion it creates, is enough.
Ullman wants the U.S. to (in his words) “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” “This ability to impose massive shock and awe, in essence to be able to 'turn the lights on and off' of an adversary as we choose, will so overload the perception, knowledge and understanding of that adversary that there will be no choice except to cease and desist or risk complete and total destruction."
Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples’ neurological systems, “to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."
When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.
The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."
Ullman is sure it will work as well in 2003 as it did in 1945: “You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes." "Super tools and weapons -- information-age equivalents of the atomic bomb -- have to be invented," he wrote in the Economic Times. "As the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome.”
When he first invented “rapid dominance,” Ullman talked about an “eight-level hierarchy of shock and awe,” with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the top. Now, it seems, that’s where he wants to start.
Is the Hiroshima model just a metaphor? Ullman recently wrote that one way to “shock and awe” Saddam is to remind him that the U.S. has “certain weapons” that can destroy deeply buried facilities. That’s a not-even-thinly-veiled reference to the newest kind of nuclear weapons, the B-61 “bunker-busters.” L.A. Times columnist William Arkin has confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to use “bunker-busters” against Iraq. That would “break down the firewall separating nuclear weapons from everything else,” Arkin warns, and “forever pit the Arab and Islamic world against us.”
Suppose we drop the nuke in the wrong place? Even Harlan Ullman admits it could easily happen: “Of course, there will always be intelligence gaps, and no solution is perfect.” But that’s just the point. “The threat would be a Damoclean sword that might or might not descend.” In other words, the fear of nukes falling who-knows-where would scare them into surrendering without a fight. Let other Islamic nations get as angry as they like. We’ll just shock and awe them too.
And why not North Korea, while we’re at it? Ullman wants a nuclear threat there, if North Korean leaders don’t heel to U.S. commands: “To remind the North of its vulnerability, one or more Trident ballistic submarines could be permanently assigned to target North Korea.” Tridents carry 240 nuclear warheads each. One Trident might not be enough, it seems. When you use shock and awe, you use it big-time.
So here we are, preparing to destroy a huge modern city, kill tens of thousands, and threaten nuclear attack -- all against people who have not fired a single bullet at us. Yes, it’s about oil. But it’s also about shock and awe, putting on a terrifying show for the whole world to see.
If all this leaves you in shock and awe, you have had your vision raised several levels too. You see what Ullman, Powell, and all the Bushies see: the U.S. frightening the whole world so badly that no one will dare fire a single bullet at us. Let them be as angry as they like, just so they know who is the meanest, toughest son of a bitch on the global block.
That is now becoming the essence of U.S. foreign policy. And they seriously believe it will put an end to war. I suppose the Romans believed it too.
07 February 2003, 11:13 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"He was the Navy's “head of extended planning” and taught at the National War College."
he's not sick- he's a war man. his job is to find the bet way to win...so he does. he's not asked to moralise on the issue......thats for us
he's not sick- he's a war man. his job is to find the bet way to win...so he does. he's not asked to moralise on the issue......thats for us
07 February 2003, 11:19 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullsxxt . It is about oil and bushes daddy not doing it first time around. Our troops are gonna get there *** kicked for christs sake. We got tanks that dont like sand, guns that dont like sand. Guys qwith wrong sort off unform .And Where will Blair be if it goes **** up.
Sittin in his feckin bunker.
Trending Topics
07 February 2003, 01:13 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shropshireguy -
so it's about daddy not doing it first time round is it?
the UN resolution governing the gulf war - a coalition force of 30 countries - only stretched as far as evicting saddam from kuwait. it did not sanction invasion of iraq.
the coalition forces stuck with that resolution to the letter.
that we are in this position is that the original UN resolution for war in 1990 did not go far enough.
please please please go look up the facts before you trot out tony benn's tired old lefty flim-flam.
so it's about daddy not doing it first time round is it?
the UN resolution governing the gulf war - a coalition force of 30 countries - only stretched as far as evicting saddam from kuwait. it did not sanction invasion of iraq.
the coalition forces stuck with that resolution to the letter.
that we are in this position is that the original UN resolution for war in 1990 did not go far enough.
please please please go look up the facts before you trot out tony benn's tired old lefty flim-flam.
07 February 2003, 01:23 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and exactly how do you work out that we're going to "get our asses kicked"?
by whom exactly? and with what? obsolete and outgunned iraqi armour? obsolete and outperformed iraqi aircraft? a largely conscripted, poor-quality army? outmoded and inadequate iraqi battlefield command and control systems?
you seem forget what happened last time. we're twelve years on: if it does come to war, inevitably on the back of a second UN resolution, his forces will be annihilated. again.
07 February 2003, 01:38 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL even I haven't joined in this one and you lot are at it.
Shropshire guy- if there is a war Iraq will lose plain ad simple. Once Saddam is captured/killed the Iraqees will prob start to celebrate. Remember he dicates that country by force not by the vote.
Remember WW2, once Hitler topped himself the german high command surrendered. Bet most of them were glad he was dead.
Shropshire guy- if there is a war Iraq will lose plain ad simple. Once Saddam is captured/killed the Iraqees will prob start to celebrate. Remember he dicates that country by force not by the vote.
Remember WW2, once Hitler topped himself the german high command surrendered. Bet most of them were glad he was dead.
07 February 2003, 01:46 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when the war starts all the nutters who follow sadam in all the rest of the world are going to sit on there asses and do nothing. I DONT THINK SO. Holy sxxt is going to break out for everyone.
Like a guy once posted on here.
You can back a dog into a corner and prod it with a stick. But in the end the dog gets fed up of being poked and comes out fighting.
07 February 2003, 02:30 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you really think the other arab states actually *support* saddam?
do you think the syrians will shed a tear? (they fought with *us* in the gulf war).
do you think the UAE will care?
do you think the kuwaitis will care?
do you think the omanis will care?
do you think the iranians care?
do you think the turks will care? (they're a member of NATO for chrissakes).
collectively they loathe him and fear him.
they would happily see saddam crucified upside down on the basra road. and pay for privilege.
while they may make a lot of fuss publicly (par for the course, as politically they are obliged to), they will be hugely relieved to see him go in private, not least in the fact that it makes their own borders more secure.
and do you think the israelis will care?
do you think the russians really care? as long as their middle east and iraqi trade is preserved, they have - and will - play ball.
does anyone really care what the vichy french think? remember, their senior commander was cut out of the planning loop last time for fear of pro-iraqi espionage. much to french national outrage.
does anyone care what the germans think? (although it's a really reassuring and refreshingly heineken moment to see them keeping their hands to themselves for a change).
the way you talk you makes us sound weak, overweaning and powerless in the light of threat. quite the opposite is the case.
do you think the syrians will shed a tear? (they fought with *us* in the gulf war).
do you think the UAE will care?
do you think the kuwaitis will care?
do you think the omanis will care?
do you think the iranians care?
do you think the turks will care? (they're a member of NATO for chrissakes).
collectively they loathe him and fear him.
they would happily see saddam crucified upside down on the basra road. and pay for privilege.
while they may make a lot of fuss publicly (par for the course, as politically they are obliged to), they will be hugely relieved to see him go in private, not least in the fact that it makes their own borders more secure.
and do you think the israelis will care?
do you think the russians really care? as long as their middle east and iraqi trade is preserved, they have - and will - play ball.
does anyone really care what the vichy french think? remember, their senior commander was cut out of the planning loop last time for fear of pro-iraqi espionage. much to french national outrage.
does anyone care what the germans think? (although it's a really reassuring and refreshingly heineken moment to see them keeping their hands to themselves for a change).
the way you talk you makes us sound weak, overweaning and powerless in the light of threat. quite the opposite is the case.
07 February 2003, 05:05 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you said it old chap, the police *are* catching them (and at some cost) - some 3,000 suspects worldwide to-date.
however, by implication you are saying that it is better to not to deal with this situation in case we provoke something worse.
sounds like paralysis to me: we do not live in a risk-free environment.
come on, active deterrence - not passive acceptance - will minimise those risks to us by putting us on the front foot and the fundamentalist islamic terrorists on the back foot.
active deterrence won the cold war.
active deterrence shutdown iraq's first nuclear programme
active deterrence shut down al-qaeda operations in afghanistan.
active deterrence - if needed - in iraq will close down a lethal potential terrorist armoury.
give them room, ease the pressure and i absolutely guarantee that the long term effects will be much more severe.
for our governments to soft-pedal will be to see them criminally abrogate their responsibility to protect us and our way of life.
however, by implication you are saying that it is better to not to deal with this situation in case we provoke something worse.
sounds like paralysis to me: we do not live in a risk-free environment.
come on, active deterrence - not passive acceptance - will minimise those risks to us by putting us on the front foot and the fundamentalist islamic terrorists on the back foot.
active deterrence won the cold war.
active deterrence shutdown iraq's first nuclear programme
active deterrence shut down al-qaeda operations in afghanistan.
active deterrence - if needed - in iraq will close down a lethal potential terrorist armoury.
give them room, ease the pressure and i absolutely guarantee that the long term effects will be much more severe.
for our governments to soft-pedal will be to see them criminally abrogate their responsibility to protect us and our way of life.
07 February 2003, 05:14 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and who are "all the nutters in the rest of the world that follow saddam?"
unless i've missed something, he is ahmed no-mates.
the problem is with regimes and organisations that actively despise the west and seek to subvert it with extreme violence.
and that reality has been with us for decades: it is now beginning to come to a head.
the only question is "are we willing to deal with it?"
unless i've missed something, he is ahmed no-mates.
the problem is with regimes and organisations that actively despise the west and seek to subvert it with extreme violence.
and that reality has been with us for decades: it is now beginning to come to a head.
the only question is "are we willing to deal with it?"
07 February 2003, 06:09 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the extremists are out there regardless of iraq and this war.
even if we didnt attack we still going to get it...they hate the west.....end of.
the world is never going to be the same again.
jesus lets wait and do fek all and get anthraxed in a year
when will ppl learn it makes no difference what bush/blair do.
i for one am for toppling that monster and freeing his people and if that makes me racist then watever.
why do ppl argue for keeping a monster like that in power...does not make sense. his ppl are repressed beyond belief.
wish ppl would stop using this 'attacking a muslim state' and see it as 'liberating a muslim state'
even if we didnt attack we still going to get it...they hate the west.....end of.
the world is never going to be the same again.
jesus lets wait and do fek all and get anthraxed in a year
when will ppl learn it makes no difference what bush/blair do.
i for one am for toppling that monster and freeing his people and if that makes me racist then watever.
why do ppl argue for keeping a monster like that in power...does not make sense. his ppl are repressed beyond belief.
wish ppl would stop using this 'attacking a muslim state' and see it as 'liberating a muslim state'
07 February 2003, 06:31 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rock...on
**
one point tho' - iraq ain't a muslim state - hussein's dictatorship is secular (sunnii?).
however, that won't stop him passing the bad stuff to extremist islamic terror groups because he despises us as much as they do.
that's simply arab to arab against the infidel. right through history.
**
one point tho' - iraq ain't a muslim state - hussein's dictatorship is secular (sunnii?).
however, that won't stop him passing the bad stuff to extremist islamic terror groups because he despises us as much as they do.
that's simply arab to arab against the infidel. right through history.
07 February 2003, 09:15 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if it means that the UK might be a safer place then yes.
the oil is a part of it but security against nutcases is too.
you really think that saddham wouildnt blink an eye to give some of his arsenal to extremists come the time.
why the fek dont ppl talk about this danger rather than harping on about the ruddy oil
the oil is a part of it but security against nutcases is too.
you really think that saddham wouildnt blink an eye to give some of his arsenal to extremists come the time.
why the fek dont ppl talk about this danger rather than harping on about the ruddy oil
08 February 2003, 03:12 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan, LOL at the pic 
Comic relief has it's uses
I sometimes joke with my brother (a pacifist to the core) who married an Israeli and lives within earshot of most of the horrors out there. His wife has some unbelievably chilling tales of life as a Russian Jew throughout World Wars I and II. Her grandparents were slaughtered in the street and she has no living relatives.
My brother has four gas-masks hanging in the kitchen, as does everyone out there. A welcoming vision at breakfast, don't you think? Brings it home.
What if Blair issued gas-masks to everyone in the UK? Panic throughout the land and a massive swing in public opinion re Iraq.
But I prefer not to speculate. We are between a rock and a hard place - on the brink of something that the world has never experienced and the consequences are unpredictable. As are the consequences of doing nothing.
We elect leaders to lead. Whatever your politics, Blair is earning his corn right now.
Richard.
Comic relief has it's uses I sometimes joke with my brother (a pacifist to the core) who married an Israeli and lives within earshot of most of the horrors out there. His wife has some unbelievably chilling tales of life as a Russian Jew throughout World Wars I and II. Her grandparents were slaughtered in the street and she has no living relatives.
My brother has four gas-masks hanging in the kitchen, as does everyone out there. A welcoming vision at breakfast, don't you think? Brings it home.
What if Blair issued gas-masks to everyone in the UK? Panic throughout the land and a massive swing in public opinion re Iraq.
But I prefer not to speculate. We are between a rock and a hard place - on the brink of something that the world has never experienced and the consequences are unpredictable. As are the consequences of doing nothing.
We elect leaders to lead. Whatever your politics, Blair is earning his corn right now.
Richard.
08 February 2003, 05:53 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 February 2003, 10:08 AM
#28
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys the western media is well on board on this one.......... Get your asses out there and see the real picture..Find out the truth about the Americans in Turkey. Find out what has been going on in Syria for the last year...........
Stop reading the Sun/mail/times etc you are not been told the truth.
Get Sadam for sure .......But not this way..........We will all regret it.
Stop reading the Sun/mail/times etc you are not been told the truth.
Get Sadam for sure .......But not this way..........We will all regret it.
08 February 2003, 12:47 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we may have some problems with our kit, take the sa80 as u all know it, or the L86A1 as i know it, its just been upgraded at a huge cost and no one has a problem with it, it performed great in Afghanistan. May not be as good as the M16 and associated versions but you could have 'all the gear and no idea' or as the brits have, 'all the idea but not so much gear'. at the end of the day its down to the individual how he operates his kit and how well he knows it. Take driving, give a Rally driver any car and he'll make it dance like cinderella, give a crap driver a car and he'll make it dance like a 2 left footed ball room dancer. NOT GOOD!!
What im trying to say is we hase some of the best trained troops and units in the world, Paras, Marines, SBS, SAS etc, etc.
They r gonna get their ***** kicked.
I ve worked with the americans and believe me they are scary!!
What im trying to say is we hase some of the best trained troops and units in the world, Paras, Marines, SBS, SAS etc, etc.
They r gonna get their ***** kicked.
I ve worked with the americans and believe me they are scary!!
08 February 2003, 03:19 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipjack, FYI
The original UN SC resolutions in 1990/1 DID implicitly authorise the deposing of Saddam. We didn't do it because the Bush administration did not see a clear exit strategy if they did get rid of him. They did not want to have to maintain a semi-permanent presence in Iraq and had no idea what the post-Saddam power vacuum would create. As it happened, the Iraqis could not believe they had got away with it, and that the republican guard units were left largely intact. The consequent persecution of the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions (which began at Allied encouragement and with the promise of support that never came) created a MASSIVE refugee problem in Iran and particularly Turkey. It was this that caused the British and US to rethink their position and create the No-fly zones, which WERE NOT UN sanctioned IIRC.
"active deterrence won the cold war."
Can you explain this? By active do mean, pre-emptive strikes to annul a threat? If so, this did not happen in the Cold War. The two blocs simply battled it out via proxy conflicts e.g Afghanistan in the 80s. The Cold War was won because the Soviet economy could not keep up with the US in the arms race, especially with red herrings like the star wars programme thrown into the mix. Gorbachev knew this, hence the peace and disarmament talks etc..
"active deterrence shutdown iraq's first nuclear programme"
Do you mean the Israeli bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor? If so, you're right, but it was seriosuly illegal. Oh, and the French sold hime the reactor technology and designs.
"active deterrence shut down al-qaeda operations in afghanistan"
Hmm, I would say, it booted Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan/ Chechenya where they are doing very nicely thankyou. But, yes, it damaged their capability considerably, but did not shut it down.
"i for one am for toppling that monster and freeing his people and if that makes me racist then watever.
why do ppl argue for keeping a monster like that in power...does not make sense. his ppl are repressed beyond belief."
Hi Shrek. Right here goes . The issue is that there are a lot of *******$ in power who opress their people, and a lot of states in serious breach of UN resolutions (Israel anyone?). However, the UN does not apply the threat and use of force to them. Why? Because their regimes suit the US's purprose. If you think the UN rather than the US/UK unilaterally should deal with Iraq, then they should also deal with Israel, Zimbabwe, Rusia (the Chechen situation) etc. As it stands, the UN is simply a playing field for US foreign policy.
Yes, most Arab states dislike Saddam, but this does not mean they want the US to unilaterally pile in and get rid of him with extreme force so they can test out all their shiny new weapons. This would set a dangerous precedent in the world and effectively would mean that the US has decided that International Law is something for other people to obey, not them. I can guarrantee most states in the world will be very unhappy about this. It could easily mean the end of the UN as a collective security system.
So, it is most deffinately not as simple as 'Saddam's a ****, lets get rid of him'. You have to see it in the wider context. And that is way more sinister.
all mho of course, Right, what ya all got to say then?
The original UN SC resolutions in 1990/1 DID implicitly authorise the deposing of Saddam. We didn't do it because the Bush administration did not see a clear exit strategy if they did get rid of him. They did not want to have to maintain a semi-permanent presence in Iraq and had no idea what the post-Saddam power vacuum would create. As it happened, the Iraqis could not believe they had got away with it, and that the republican guard units were left largely intact. The consequent persecution of the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions (which began at Allied encouragement and with the promise of support that never came) created a MASSIVE refugee problem in Iran and particularly Turkey. It was this that caused the British and US to rethink their position and create the No-fly zones, which WERE NOT UN sanctioned IIRC.
"active deterrence won the cold war."
Can you explain this? By active do mean, pre-emptive strikes to annul a threat? If so, this did not happen in the Cold War. The two blocs simply battled it out via proxy conflicts e.g Afghanistan in the 80s. The Cold War was won because the Soviet economy could not keep up with the US in the arms race, especially with red herrings like the star wars programme thrown into the mix. Gorbachev knew this, hence the peace and disarmament talks etc..
"active deterrence shutdown iraq's first nuclear programme"
Do you mean the Israeli bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor? If so, you're right, but it was seriosuly illegal. Oh, and the French sold hime the reactor technology and designs.
"active deterrence shut down al-qaeda operations in afghanistan"
Hmm, I would say, it booted Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan/ Chechenya where they are doing very nicely thankyou. But, yes, it damaged their capability considerably, but did not shut it down.
"i for one am for toppling that monster and freeing his people and if that makes me racist then watever.
why do ppl argue for keeping a monster like that in power...does not make sense. his ppl are repressed beyond belief."
Hi Shrek. Right here goes
. The issue is that there are a lot of *******$ in power who opress their people, and a lot of states in serious breach of UN resolutions (Israel anyone?). However, the UN does not apply the threat and use of force to them. Why? Because their regimes suit the US's purprose. If you think the UN rather than the US/UK unilaterally should deal with Iraq, then they should also deal with Israel, Zimbabwe, Rusia (the Chechen situation) etc. As it stands, the UN is simply a playing field for US foreign policy.Yes, most Arab states dislike Saddam, but this does not mean they want the US to unilaterally pile in and get rid of him with extreme force so they can test out all their shiny new weapons. This would set a dangerous precedent in the world and effectively would mean that the US has decided that International Law is something for other people to obey, not them. I can guarrantee most states in the world will be very unhappy about this. It could easily mean the end of the UN as a collective security system.
So, it is most deffinately not as simple as 'Saddam's a ****, lets get rid of him'. You have to see it in the wider context. And that is way more sinister.
all mho of course, Right, what ya all got to say then?