Matrix Games Forums

Just as we could not go on to Baghdad, we had to choose between supporting Iraqi revolution, or the support of Saudi arabi, UAE, Oman, and others.

One can hold Bush senior responsible, but it he was between a rock and a hard place as the Saudis in particular would not support any action to destabilize the IRaqi regime.

You can say we should have told the Saudis to go F off, but that is debatable.



North Korea is an interesting case. Most analysts predicted that it would not last anouther 5 years. The vigor with which they are crying out "pay attention to us" is indicative to many observers that the regime there is in much tougher straits than previously thoughts and may be on the verge of collapse.

This "child holding its breathe" routine is likely part of a domestic policy to prove the Dear Leader is a powerful international force who can demand the attention of the evil US now that he has nuclear weps.

Like ignoring the tantrum of a 3 year old, our dissmissive policy is exactly the right response and will likely hasten the demise fo teh regime there.

Given the close ties to China, and the involvement of "advisors" there is littel chance the Chinese will permit the NK to use the handful of nukes they have in ways counter to China's interest, or allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists.

It is in China's interest to ensure that those nukes are not used in ways that are not in China's interest.


Iran, Jordan and Syria are "teetering on the brink of democracy" and a demonstration in Iraq of an even marginally successful Arab democracy is hoped to have a favorable response.

The ability of Iran to move ahead with its nuclear weapons program under the watchful eyes of UN inspectors should be a lesson to those claiming inspections are the only road to non-proliferation...

DAAANG...we are smart

Who needs RAND or CIA analysts...lets start our own think tank...come on over, I'll throw some RibEyes on the barBQ and we can draw up incorporation papers.

I like the 3 yr. old breatholding analogy for NK....the problem is the spoiled little rugrat has a loaded 9 mm in his diaper.

Well said Wild Bill.

It is most certainly no coincidence. We are going to finally get around to finishing the business begun in the last Gulf War, a war that I lost a some good friends in.

I am glad to see that thier sacrifice will finally amount to something worthwhile.

I just hope it is not at the cost of the friends I currently have deployed there.

It is only victory when the opponent fully understands without a doubt that he has been defeated. Until then, it is a temproary advantage that time will most certainly destroy.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

If for instance, Iran was to use a nucear weapon on another nation, even if with devestating effect, such as eliminating Tel Aviv in a stroke, the response would be the immediate removal of Iran through the most horrific response possible.

In an instant, the US would likely stike and remove the offending country in a heart beat.

An interesting point is would the USA react with nuclear weapons. Israel would if it still could, but if the USA was not under nuclear attack itself, then I doubt if USA would launch retaliatory strikes.

After 6 years of world war and with a new weapon which was not fully understood, it is understandable why the bomb was dropped on Japan. But times have changed. You dont wipe out entire countries or cities because of the leadership. I think the US would attack Iran in that scenario but with conventional forces. They may bring along small strategic nuclear bombs with them to threaten the regime and/or destroy army and command compounds but the country itself would be left largely intact.

And what would happen if Iran said they had the means to detonate nuclear bombs in USA. It would give any US President reason to pause and wonder if it would be better just to make a truce and work on alternative plans to remove the Iranian regime.

Definitely better to halt nuclear profileration in its tracks. The problem is the US has allowed others who are not "enemies" such as India and Pakistan to develop their own. That could backfire in the future.

Still undecided what the US would do actually.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done for many reasons. Part military , part political.

The US though, would not I think hesitate to wield it's might in response to a nuclear attack on an ally.

The idea being "it could be us next" would play a large part in that thinking.

Well that's it for me guys, political posts are getting out of hand. I am stepping back from this thread at this time.

Unsubscribed.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Bush senior is at fault for today's mess.

He didn't finish what he started. So what the Iraqis were getting trashed big time. They invaded Kuwait, wouldn't leave when told, and suffered a horrible pounding for it.

But they were getting mauled and Bush senior balked at going to Baghdad.

And now 12 years later look at the friggin mess.

If daddy had gone and taken Saddam out and off to an international court (regardless of whether anything was accomplished), we would not be dabating whether any of the current mess was right wrong needed or justified.

I am sure glad I am not Bush junior.

I agree with Les on this one.

Bush Sr. was a military man and a Cold Warrior. If anyone should know Saddam would be back, he should have.

IMO he made the mistake of trying to appease the coalition. He made the often fatal error of wanting to be "liked" instead of the much better for peace "feared"

The hard right warned we'd have to do this again, unless he was removed, and here we are.

Just my 2 cents.

During his tenior as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General/Secretary of State Colin Powell developed a simple, three-point doctrine to be applied before U.S. troops were committed to battle. These points, as I recall hearing them, were:

Before the U.S. commits any military force to an engagement, it should:

1. Set definite and achievable goals within the scope of the training and capabilities of the armed forces.

2. Be willing to commit enough military force to ensure victory.

3. Have clearly defined plans for the 'end game'.

In my mind, if the Powell Doctrine were used by every administration, it would eliminate a lot of missions the military is ill prepared to carry out, such as drug interdiction, or sending the military on open-ended and/or unwinnable missions. JMHO.

Eric Maietta

Getting back to Hitler and the Second World War - I had a history teacher, while I was in High School, who grew up in Germany, and was involved in the Hitler Youth, during that time. His point of view on whether it would have been better to kill Hitler to shorten the war went something like this -

He believed that it would have been a bad thing. Why? Because if Hitler had been killed his place would have been taken by someone else and a peaceful solution would have ended the war early. But! This would not have solved the real problem which was the inherent evilness of the Nazi party and its adherants. The war being fought to the ultimate end that it did destroyed Nazism and ultimately saved more lives than would have been saved by ending the war early. An interesting argument and something akin to the thread of discussion.