SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: carranza2 who wrote (134061)5/23/2004 12:42:54 PM
From: h0db  Respond to of 281500
 
Fine, but that is not the case that the Bushies were making to justify the war. Their line was that Iraq represented a clear, imminent threat. If containment was in danger, they also carry a lot of the blame. And people that know more about it than you or I are asserting that containment was not "indisputably" breaking down.

cdi.org

"So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there. It disintegrated in front of us. It didn't have the capabilities, that were pumped up, that were supposedly possessed by this military. And I think that will be the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that containment as a policy doesn't work. It certainly worked against the Soviet Union, has worked with North Korea and others. It's not a pleasant thing to have to administer, it requires troops full-time, there are moments when there ... there are periods of violence, but containment is a lot cheaper than the alternative, as we're finding out now. So I think that will be mistake number one: discounting the effectiveness of the containment. "

-- Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.), former CINCCENTCOM.

You can catch him tonight on CBS' "60 Minutes"

We can discuss hypotheticals all you want. What if Saddam could fly? What if Udai could project death rays from his eyes? But the facts on the ground are indisputable.



To: carranza2 who wrote (134061)5/23/2004 12:47:36 PM
From: blue red1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
containment was indisputably breaking down.

Seems to me it had worked splendidly.

What exactly do you think would have happened if Saddam were in place now armed with a few nukes he obtained from N. Korea, Pakistan, or wherever?

Nothing would have happened. Saddam wanted to survive more than anything, and Iraq would have been obliterated if Saddam had used a nuke. The sole use of nukes has been to deter attacks, not to make them.