TJ, the 19th century is out of living memory of everyone and we might as well argue whether Genghis and co should go back to north of the wall. The Tibetan outright conquest is not so historical. The conquest of Iraq is quite current and was favoured by most Iraqis to get rid of Saddam, Uday and co.
I didn't think the USA and the Cow should invade Iraq, and neither did I think there were WMDs of any significance and you can search "Bigfoot" and find Mq's rants on the matter.
But since Saddam was such a murderous thug and dog eat dog conflict was the way rulers were decided, it seemed reasonable enough if King George II fancied his chances of taking over without excessive cost.
I thought they'd win the military battle in one Globalstar orbit of 100 minutes, or maybe it was 110 minutes. But that there would be some 3000 USA casualties as the subsequent insurrection wore on.
Sure enough, Iraqis sensibly downed weapons as soon as they safely could [avoiding being shot by their bosses for surrendering] and ran for it in their undies.
I thought Saddam was right when he said he didn't have WMDs.
Mqurice's thoughts and comments [and you can search in SI as the posts are still there somewhere] were that Saddam should invite the UN in en masse to inspect said absence of WMDs [no Americans being invited would be a reasonable requirement since Americans were plotting his overthrow and would take the opportunity to spy and plan targets], set up a regional conference and headquarters to discuss a total reorganisation of the UN into a NUN [New UN] with India, Japan, Germany being properly recognized, and constitutionally altered so that individuals appoint the boss rather than a bunch of dubiously established national leaders. The constitution should limit the NUN to borders and protection of the commons [spectrum oceans, rivers, air etc] and the like.
Saddam did not do that because he didn't think like that. He could have check-mated the USA onslaught before it began.
Anyway, I have ranted about it long and hard years ago. Where to now is what matters. Saddam won't be taking part in the process. Nor will Uday. Good riddance to both.
There are many good aspects to the conflict. It's not all bad. For example, the USA has had a lot of live-fire training. On-lookers will realize, once again, that it might not be so clever to take on the most powerful military to ever exist. China for example, might think a little more carefully before casually attacking Taiwan. Libya decided to avoid a conflict. North Korea went along with the discussions.
Iran must be sweating.
China's bosses will think, "Hmmmm, those Predator drones seem to be quite annoying. If we start a conflict over there, what if those things come flying over here? And what did they say about the Three Gorges Dam as an interesting military target?"
Mqurice |
