Pretty much what I said. Being a dictator/tyrant in his own country doesn't translate into problems for the rest of the world. How long did this go on for before the US got involved? Only when he moved against one of their largest sources of oil, Kuwait. And then they ****ing kicked his arse. He limped back to Iraq with a totally depleted force and even if he was still in power at home, he was in no position, unless he allied to another power, to do the US any damage.

Sure the US could take out NK but then China would take them out too. You want World War III? :yikes: Being ABLE to do something does not necessarily mean it SHOULD be done. I guarantee you NK and its allies could decimate most of the US, and the rest of the world if they were pushed to it, which is why they get such a wide berth.

There was a theory on that a while back people were discussing. Take out the gov't & military leadership in Beijing & Pyongyang in one over night raid and watch as the military influence crumbles. There's a lot of problems with this, of course. Civilian causalities being the top one. But of course without a provoked reason from NK, the US isn't going to start that shit storm with them.

what you really trying to say?

also... the whole "we went in for oil" trope... uhhh, duh? why do you think we even have any strategic geopolitical interests in that region at all? why do you think we went in in 91? to help the poor downtrodden citizens of kuwait? cracka pls. the saudis requested the US to intervene. saddam was making them nervous, because his military was miles ahead of theirs and he was starting to act like an arab napolean. we had a strategic interest to intervene because the prospect of a major power gaining control of a significant portion of the oil-rich mid-east that was hostile to US interests was undesirable to us. so we were more than happy to oblige the saudi's and kuwaiti's request for assistance.

and had we went in and finished the job, dismantling the baath regime completely, the whole IS situation we're looking at now would've simply manifested years sooner. because iraq, like many other mid east nations, is an artificial entity carved out european imperialists. so it consists of several different feuding nationalities that, without an oppressive saddam-like tyrant to keep them in check through brutal murderous police-state policies, have a tendency to want to balkanize and split into feuding sectarian entities.

all that said, i do think the war was mismanaged. it could've been used to a much greater effect. the two major mistakes, as i see them, are:

a) failing to capitalize on the potential leverage it granted us. iirc, after saddam was invaded, ghaddafi openly came forward willing to surrender his own WMD's, out of fear of becoming the next saddam. similarly, for a brief period after the invasion, iran was willing to pursue greater diplomacy with the US out of a similar fear. bush rejected this attempt using the line of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' or some dumb walker-texas-ranger brand redneck bull**** like that. as a result, a potential for diplomacy with one of the US's major rivals in the region was missed.

b) blacklisting the baath party, thus guaranteeing that many of the most capable and qualified iraqis were disqualified from participating in the new regime, thus undermining the effort to stabalize the country after the dismantling of saddam's regime.

right. if you are trying to convince me that the US acts as an imperial power rather than strictly a defensive force, then you should check out my american imperialism thread.

but keep in mind how this back and forth started. i said he was a greater potential problem than al qaeda, who were a bunch of goat ****ing peasants hiding out in the caves of afghanistan. i'm talking about a greater problem in terms of geopolitical interests, btw. not saying al qaeda weren't more of a threat to american citizens living in the US.

no... i was just making a point. in that case the only reason not to take out NK is cause of china. well guess what... saddam didn't have a china.

plus, us >>> china, by far, militarily. and if NK acted out and made the first act of aggression, say against SK, china probably wouldn't even back them because the US and china have a mutual disinterest in going head to head in an actual war. doing so would be too detrimental for the economies of both countries, especially china.

come on chula. you of all people shouldn't be catching feelings over snide remarks. answer my question. why is dismantling saddam's regime in 91 better than in 2003?

Exactly. China's economy is massively dependent on US sales. War with the US means that China's economy would probably completely collapse in on itself. It wouldn't take long before the Chinese gov't wouldn't have money to pay their soldiers - and soldiers get pissed when they don't get paid. Meanwhile on the US side, sure, we'd suffer quite a set back as a bunch of our consumer products would suddenly be unavailable. That doesn't mean, however, that we couldn't produce the same things.

Am I not right in saying though that he was backed by Russia? Weren't they the ones who kept holding out on joining the "Coalition of the Willing" (Jesus!) :rolleyes: and who kept blocking UN resolutions? And didn't they/aren't they now doing the same thing about Assad? All the Arab nations would have been behind Saddam, no? He was an arab leader...

You sound like you're confusing Al Qaeda with the Taliban. Al Qaeda was a multinational network, lead by a billionaire, which engaged in aggression in numerous countries around the globe.

yea russia and china both were a bit weary of us imperialism in the region, cause they both consider the US a natural rival, which it is. but russia wasn't going to war with the US over iraq, so they weren't the china in your scenario. an out-of-nowhere attack on NK would be a lot more provocative to china than he iraq war was to russia.

russia is basically trying to assert their own dominance over the eurasian continent, and thumbing their nose at US dominance in the process. they are interested in undermining US influence in the region any chance they get. that's what their whole syria shtick was about.