Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
You're not being logical.
|
Quote:
|
I don't see you calling the US army irrational.
|
Perhaps because we're not discussing Vietnam or Somalia. <b>You</b> are not being logical. You're intentionally attempting to mislead the reader by bringing up a wholly irrelevant side-argument.
Quote:
|
Actually it was in theri national interest, by the stage Al Queda virtually controlled the Taliban.
|
Yes, it was in their national interest. Which explains why they are now simply "pockets of resistance" instead of "the ruling Taliban". It simply wasn't in their national interest to house al Qaeda, because that's what got them a good ass-fucking by coalition forces. Get real.
Quote:
Originally posted by the Cam-meister
Saddam is content with things as they are, he has nearly unlimited resources for his personal pleasure, and his citizens do not seem likely turn on him. Why would he attack another country especially one as powerful as the US? It would be committing suicide.
|
You are thinking <b>rationally</b>. There is no guarantee that Hussein will do the same.
Tony touched on it, but allow me to expand. Hussein honestly believes that he could take the U.S. if they invaded. He honestly believes that the mightiest military in the world would be toppled if they attempted to remove him from power. This notion, if he believes it to be true, falls into one of two categories.
The first is the "irrational" category. It is not a clear line of thinking. He is well informed of the U.S. military's technology and their strengths, but he is convinced that Allah will ensure that he is victorious (or all other Arab nations will rise up in support, or... choose your reason). However, it is simply not true. The U.S. military will not lose any more wars because of their technological advantage over any adversaries. Yes, there will certainly be ground casualties, but we will not be sending in half a million ground troops for hand-to-hand combat. Wars these days are waged from far away, with computers and smart bombs. The U.S. will not risk so many casualties as to do a full invasion of the territory.
The other is the "grossly ignorant" category. This would be the case if he thought the U.S. was going to invade with paintball guns and throwing stars. It is possible (though not likely - I believe the first case is the correct one) that Hussein does not know the extent of the U.S. military's arsenal and is confident that he could take a conventional military. This may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter, because he wouldn't be fighting a conventional army. This isn't Vietnam and U.S. troops aren't digging in to sand dunes to fight. Computers, smartbombs... that is how this altercation (if one does occur) will be fought.
So, that being the case... the question is, can we trust that Hussein will act in a wholly rational manner for the rest of his reign? I think that we can't, because he has previously demonstrated he is capable of irrational thought when it comes to an altercation with the United States.
That, my friends, is why we need to get weapons inspectors back in Iraq as soon as possible.