An Unnecessary War

Foreign Policy Magazine ^ | January, 2003 | John Mearsheimer

[Torie]

Well we aren't going to do that. So it is a moot point. LOL.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We placed troops in Germany as a deterrent to an attack from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not there anymore, and neither is support from Germany.

South Korea is openly talking about reunification.

The Saudis will politely ask us to leave soon.

What makes you think we will not set up shop in Iraq?

The ground work is being laid out with all the "long occupation" estimates.

[Jhoffa_]

You think Saddam has...issues?

I bet her breaks out the hose morphs into "Saddie" when no one's around..

No, actually I do think he's very shrewd..

He's already won more in the court of public opinion than he ever has on the battlefield.

I think this latest deal where he agrees to destroy the missiles is brilliant. They certainly won't save him from our military, but they will gain him allot of mileage at the UN.

They are probably worth more to him as scrap than they are online at this point.

^ imho. I think this latest deal where he agrees to destroy the missles is brilliant. They certainly won't save him from our military, but they will gain him allot of mileage at the UN.

[Jhoffa_]

I apologize for the above, my netscape has been appending (and deleting!) lines of text and previous edits lately..

[Torie]

Because we said we would not more or less, and it would have negative reprocussions in the region. We have set up shop in Qatar. That doesn't mean we won't have a more low profile presence, but it is not going to be some big flashy base. Most of our troops are going home.

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[ChemistCat]

Thanks for posting this. All along I've said a good case can be made (i.e., a non-liberal case!) against the war, and this article makes one. I agree that the cost of containment is keeping a military force poised and ready to strike--expensive, exhausting, and a state of things that might embolden other enemies to strike. Can you say NORTH KOREA? It's time to show the world that Clinton was an aberration and that America will retaliate when our interests are threatened. If Iraq is only a small part of the terror network, it is nevertheless a very tangible part, easy to identify, attack, and defeat.

It's the eight years of doing NOTHING in response to multiple attacks that got us into this. Even if this isn't the 100% most correct action, just doing SOMETHING is better than promising to do something--and then not doing it.

[Eastbound]

"If the blackmailer and the target state both have nuclear weapons, however, the blackmailer’s threat is an empty one because the blackmailer cannot carry out the threat without triggering his own destruction."

Empty threat? I think not. Homicidal bomber on a larger scale.