Discussion:
Middle East war without Iraq War
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 17:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq. Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program. Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
jerry kraus
2017-07-18 18:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 19:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression. Saddam was an oppressive leader. There's no reason to think the Arab Spring wouldn't have spread to Iraq.
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Manhattan Project only took 3 years. Nowadays, Nuclear weapons technology is old technology that you can learn. And don't forget Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in the early '80s. So, it wouldn't have even been starting from scratch.
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in this scenario, it's in the Devil's interest to make a deal with Israel.
Alex Milman
2017-07-19 21:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
Post by j***@gmail.com
There's no reason to think the Arab Spring wouldn't have spread to Iraq.
If scenario assumes that we are NOT meddling into the issues, there would be
no Arab Spring as something more than a blip: the regional dictators had been
managing to deal with the local religious fanatics for decades. OTOH, if we
assume that we ARE meddling (as in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Egypt) then outcome
depends on how serious is our meddling. If Papa Bush did not start the whole
nonsense and GWB did not escalate it into a complete idiocy and Obama did
not "contribute" to the mess, Saddam would deal with the rebels as he was
dealing with the rebellions before.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 21:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The definition of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
Post by j***@gmail.com
There's no reason to think the Arab Spring wouldn't have spread to Iraq.
If scenario assumes that we are NOT meddling into the issues, there would be
no Arab Spring as something more than a blip: the regional dictators had been
managing to deal with the local religious fanatics for decades. OTOH, if we
assume that we ARE meddling (as in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Egypt) then outcome
depends on how serious is our meddling. If Papa Bush did not start the whole
nonsense and GWB did not escalate it into a complete idiocy and Obama did
not "contribute" to the mess, Saddam would deal with the rebels as he was
dealing with the rebellions before.
This thread is about a Middle East war without the Iraq War. Assume the Persian Gulf War happened. Our meddling didn't start until after the shit had already hit the fan.
Alex Milman
2017-07-19 23:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-20 01:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much.
We don't like strong competition, you know.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the what the definition of oppressor is. You think it's the any leader in the Middle East other than Israel.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-20 01:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
jerry kraus
2017-07-20 13:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.

I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.

There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 05:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
The majority of governments aren't oppressive. The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-21 18:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spr=
ead to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are reg=
ularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better targ=
et for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthles=
s, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, =
once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of th=
e population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious z=
ealots than Saddam himself.
The majority of governments aren't oppressive. The Persian Gulf War took pl=
ace in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I=
didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of th=
e Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for pu=
rposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of Ge=
orge Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the=
bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became =
president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the=
Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughl=
y 10 years.
Was there any particular reason Saddam kicked off the first Gulf War
by invading Kuwait? Obviously he wouldn't do so during his war with
Iran (1980-88) but any particular reason why then at that time?

Was there anything going on in the world at that point that would lead
him to believe he could get away with it? I don't know of anything
like that.

Of course it could have been worse for him - had he invaded in 1993
shortly after the first al Qaeda attempt on the World Trade Center it
could have gotten extremely ugly extremely quickly. 2003 was clearly
the aftermath of 9/11 but the first Gulf War could have taken place
pretty much any time in the 90s without requiring ASBs.
jerry kraus
2017-07-21 18:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spr=
ead to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are reg=
ularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better targ=
et for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthles=
s, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, =
once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of th=
e population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious z=
ealots than Saddam himself.
The majority of governments aren't oppressive. The Persian Gulf War took pl=
ace in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I=
didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of th=
e Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for pu=
rposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of Ge=
orge Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the=
bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became =
president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the=
Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughl=
y 10 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there any particular reason Saddam kicked off the first Gulf War
by invading Kuwait? Obviously he wouldn't do so during his war with
Iran (1980-88) but any particular reason why then at that time?
He was deeply in debt following the Iran-Iraq War, and Kuwait looked like a ready means of solving that problem, with little or no opposition. He could substantially increase his oil revenues, his power and his wealth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there anything going on in the world at that point that would lead
him to believe he could get away with it? I don't know of anything
like that.
Perhaps I can be of assistance then, Horny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

"In early July 1990, Iraq complained about Kuwait's behavior, such as not respecting their quota, and openly threatened to take military action. On the 23rd, the CIA reported that Iraq had moved 30,000 troops to the Iraq-Kuwait border, and the US naval fleet in the Persian Gulf was placed on alert. Saddam believed an anti-Iraq conspiracy was developing – Kuwait had begun talks with Iran, and Iraq's rival Syria had arranged a visit to Egypt.[48] Upon review by the Secretary of Defense, it was found that Syria indeed planned a strike against Iraq in the coming days. Saddam immediately used funding to incorporate central intelligence into Syria and ultimately prevented the impending air strike. On 15 July 1990, Saddam's government laid out its combined objections to the Arab League, including that policy moves were costing Iraq $1 billion a year, that Kuwait was still using the Rumaila oil field, that loans made by the UAE and Kuwait could not be considered debts to its "Arab brothers".[48] He threatened force against Kuwait and the UAE, saying: "The policies of some Arab rulers are American ... They are inspired by America to undermine Arab interests and security."[49] The US sent aerial refuelling planes and combat ships to the Persian Gulf in response to these threats.[50] Discussions in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, mediated on the Arab League's behalf by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, were held on 31 July and led Mubarak to believe that a peaceful course could be established.[51]

On the 25th, Saddam met with April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq, in Baghdad. The Iraqi leader attacked American policy with regards to Kuwait and the UAE:

So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the UAE and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights ... If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you ... We do not place America among the enemies. We place it where we want our friends to be and we try to be friends. But repeated American statements last year made it apparent that America did not regard us as friends.[52]

Glaspie replied:

I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait ... Frankly, we can only see that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the UAE and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned.[52]

Saddam stated that he would attempt last-ditch negotiations with the Kuwaitis but Iraq "would not accept death".[52]

According to Glaspie's own account, she stated in reference to the precise border between Kuwait and Iraq, "... that she had served in Kuwait 20 years before; 'then, as now, we took no position on these Arab affairs'."[53] Glaspie similarly believed that war was not imminent.[51]"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The key point is, the Americans at no time indicated prior to the invasion that they would respond militarily to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. If they had, Saddam Hussein would not have done it. The strongest statement made by the U.S. Ambassador was that the U.S. would be "concerned" about military aggression against Kuwait. Bear in mind, up to this point, Iraq had been considered a very strong American ally in the Middle East, even an essential one, to counterbalance the Revolutionary government of Iran. Saddam had no reason to think his power grab would be challenged. I can still remember the rather shocking transition in CBS News Anchor Dan Rather's attitude, in just 24 hours, when "President Hussein" suddenly became "Dictator Hussein", following the invasion of Kuwait.
Post by The Horny Goat
Of course it could have been worse for him - had he invaded in 1993
shortly after the first al Qaeda attempt on the World Trade Center it
could have gotten extremely ugly extremely quickly. 2003 was clearly
the aftermath of 9/11 but the first Gulf War could have taken place
pretty much any time in the 90s without requiring ASBs.
Rich Rostrom
2017-07-23 19:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there any particular reason Saddam kicked off
the first Gulf War by invading Kuwait? Obviously he
wouldn't do so during his war with Iran (1980-88)
but any particular reason why then at that time?
Iraq owed Kuwait a lot of money from the Iran-Iraq war.
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there anything going on in the world at that
point that would lead him to believe he could get
away with it? I don't know of anything like that.
What's usually pointed to is a comment by a US
emissary to Iraq, who said the US would not take
sides in the ongoing disputes between Iraq and
Kuwait. (The war debts; also production from oil
fields on the border.) Saddam took this as a tacit
guarantee of complete US neutrality.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 05:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
An oppressive government is a government that denies rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive. The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 05:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
An oppressive government is a government that denies many rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive. The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 05:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
An oppressive government is a government that denies basic rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive. The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years. None of the Arab leaders's rules were challenged before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring didn't start out as a religious uprising. It started out as an uprising against oppression.
jerry kraus
2017-07-21 13:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
An oppressive government is a government that denies basic rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive.
This point is highly debatable, but, I'd certainly agree that some governments are much more oppressive than others, and, that the government of Saddam Hussein was more oppressive than most.

The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years. None of the Arab leaders's rules were challenged before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring didn't start out as a religious uprising. It started out as an uprising against oppression.

If, Josh, we assume that there are no further bombings of Iraq, that the allied imposed no-fly zones in Iraq are eliminated, and that the allied imposed embargoes on Saddam Hussein's government are eliminated, then Saddam Hussein will simply go back to behaving exactly as he had before the Gulf War. In other words, any opponents will be immediately exterminated. Using gas bombings from the air, if need be. Given the religious diversity of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government -- a complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians -- it will be extremely difficult for any kind of united opposition to coalesce against him. In Syria, the population is reasonably homogeneous, and Assad, although ruthless, was never as ruthless as Saddam Hussein. So, it was possible for a hard core opposition to form in Syria. In Egypt, Mubarak was a relatively soft dictator in a very large, and unstable country, so, he was fairly willing to step aside as opposition mounted during the "Arab spring". Now, he's out of prison, has been rehabilitated, and a military regime has been reestablished in Egypt. In other words, the "Arab spring" was far from an inevitability. It's really only a Syrian phenomenon, in any long term sense. Saddam Hussein would have crushed it instantly, if, as you propose, we got off his back. But, if we had still been on his back, he could simply have redirected his people's frustrations onto us. Hussein was a very clever character, that's why we had to crush him.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 17:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
An oppressive government is a government that denies basic rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive.
This point is highly debatable, but, I'd certainly agree that some governments are much more oppressive than others, and, that the government of Saddam Hussein was more oppressive than most.
The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years. None of the Arab leaders's rules were challenged before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring didn't start out as a religious uprising. It started out as an uprising against oppression.
If, Josh, we assume that there are no further bombings of Iraq, that the allied imposed no-fly zones in Iraq are eliminated, and that the allied imposed embargoes on Saddam Hussein's government are eliminated, then Saddam Hussein will simply go back to behaving exactly as he had before the Gulf War. In other words, any opponents will be immediately exterminated. Using gas bombings from the air, if need be. Given the religious diversity of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government -- a complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians -- it will be extremely difficult for any kind of united opposition to coalesce against him. In Syria, the population is reasonably homogeneous, and Assad, although ruthless, was never as ruthless as Saddam Hussein. So, it was possible for a hard core opposition to form in Syria. In Egypt, Mubarak was a relatively soft dictator in a very large, and unstable country, so, he was fairly willing to step aside as opposition mounted during the "Arab spring". Now, he's out of prison, has been rehabilitated, and a military regime has been reestablished in Egypt. In other words, the "Arab spring" was far from an inevitability. It's really only a Syrian phenomenon, in any long term sense. Saddam Hussein would have crushed it instantly, if, as you propose, we got off his back. But, if we had still been on his back, he could simply have redirected his people's frustrations onto us. Hussein was a very clever character, that's why we had to crush him.
No, we didn't. The Iraq War should never have happened.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 17:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
An oppressive government is a government that denies basic rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive.
This point is highly debatable, but, I'd certainly agree that some governments are much more oppressive than others, and, that the government of Saddam Hussein was more oppressive than most.
The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years. None of the Arab leaders's rules were challenged before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring didn't start out as a religious uprising. It started out as an uprising against oppression.
If, Josh, we assume that there are no further bombings of Iraq, that the allied imposed no-fly zones in Iraq are eliminated, and that the allied imposed embargoes on Saddam Hussein's government are eliminated, then Saddam Hussein will simply go back to behaving exactly as he had before the Gulf War. In other words, any opponents will be immediately exterminated. Using gas bombings from the air, if need be. Given the religious diversity of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government -- a complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians -- it will be extremely difficult for any kind of united opposition to coalesce against him. In Syria, the population is reasonably homogeneous, and Assad, although ruthless, was never as ruthless as Saddam Hussein. So, it was possible for a hard core opposition to form in Syria. In Egypt, Mubarak was a relatively soft dictator in a very large, and unstable country, so, he was fairly willing to step aside as opposition mounted during the "Arab spring". Now, he's out of prison, has been rehabilitated, and a military regime has been reestablished in Egypt. In other words, the "Arab spring" was far from an inevitability. It's really only a Syrian phenomenon, in any long term sense. Saddam Hussein would have crushed it instantly, if, as you propose, we got off his back. But, if we had still been on his back, he could simply have redirected his people's frustrations onto us. Hussein was a very clever character, that's why we had to crush him.
No, we didn't. The Iraq War should never have happened. Who's to say that different religious and ethnic groups couldn't get together to oppose Saddam? I'm sure hatred of him was something a lot of them had in common.
jerry kraus
2017-07-21 18:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Elements of that developed. But that's not how it started.
Of course. It started with Obama's Cairo speech and his policy of enabling the
Muslim extremists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saddam was an oppressive leader.
ANY leader in the pile of manure called "Middle East" (with the exception of
Israel) is an oppressor by definition. Must be if he/she/it wants to retain
power.
The of oppressor isn't the leader of a country in the Middle East other than Israel.
You are either an ignorant moron or anti-Semitic scumbag or both.
Clearly, you're the ignorant moron because you don't even know the definition of oppressor.
Alex isn't ignorant, Josh, but he has a temper. Then, he gets upset when anyone else shows any temper.
I think, though, the concept of "oppressor" is a bit hard to pin down when we speak of governments. All governments are oppressive, to a greater or a lesser degree, of course, we sacrifice freedom to live in a civil society. Read Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.
There are a number of reasons I doubt that the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq. Assuming the Gulf War took place in 1990, the Allies are regularly bombing the Hell out of the country, so they make a much better target for popular resentment than Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam was ruthless, respected and resourceful, his rule was never really challenged at all, once established. There was a very large Christian community -- 10% of the population -- making this group a much more likely target for religious zealots than Saddam himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
An oppressive government is a government that denies basic rights to its people. The majority of governments aren't oppressive.
This point is highly debatable, but, I'd certainly agree that some governments are much more oppressive than others, and, that the government of Saddam Hussein was more oppressive than most.
The Persian Gulf War took place in 1991. You actually brought up something that brings up a POD issue I didn't address. We bombed Iraq numerous times from 1998 to the start of the Iraq War. But, this timeline assumes no Iraq War. So, let's assume for purposes of this timeline that Al Gore became president in 2001 instead of George Bush number 2. Let's further assume that Al Gore ordered a stop to the bombing when he became president. Let's further assume Obama still became president in 2009 and he didn't order a resumption of bombing. So, when the Arab Spring started, there hadn't been any bombing raids on Iraq in roughly 10 years. None of the Arab leaders's rules were challenged before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring didn't start out as a religious uprising. It started out as an uprising against oppression.
If, Josh, we assume that there are no further bombings of Iraq, that the allied imposed no-fly zones in Iraq are eliminated, and that the allied imposed embargoes on Saddam Hussein's government are eliminated, then Saddam Hussein will simply go back to behaving exactly as he had before the Gulf War. In other words, any opponents will be immediately exterminated. Using gas bombings from the air, if need be. Given the religious diversity of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government -- a complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians -- it will be extremely difficult for any kind of united opposition to coalesce against him. In Syria, the population is reasonably homogeneous, and Assad, although ruthless, was never as ruthless as Saddam Hussein. So, it was possible for a hard core opposition to form in Syria. In Egypt, Mubarak was a relatively soft dictator in a very large, and unstable country, so, he was fairly willing to step aside as opposition mounted during the "Arab spring". Now, he's out of prison, has been rehabilitated, and a military regime has been reestablished in Egypt. In other words, the "Arab spring" was far from an inevitability. It's really only a Syrian phenomenon, in any long term sense. Saddam Hussein would have crushed it instantly, if, as you propose, we got off his back. But, if we had still been on his back, he could simply have redirected his people's frustrations onto us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hussein was a very clever character, that's why we had to crush him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
No, we didn't. The Iraq War should never have happened. Who's to say that different religious and ethnic groups couldn't get together to oppose Saddam? I'm sure hatred of him was something a lot of them had in common.
Oh, actually, I agree with you Josh that the Iraq War should never have happened, it was just a means for George Bush Jr. to get reelected. When I say "we had to crush him", I'm really just trying to think in terms of the U.S. Pentagon or the State Department i.e., he's too clever and strong for us, therefore he must be destroyed. Like I say, the U.S. government really doesn't like strong competition, at all.

No Iraq War, I'd say Saddam and/or his sons are still in power in Iraq. You never know, of course. Obviously, anything is possible.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-20 16:58:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning. (This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much; but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar (Wiki
tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police and committed
suicide in protest. A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but originally
it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the secularism.)
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-21 03:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning.
A lot can be said about that article but who gain from ...er...
"democratization" in Tunisia and Egypt? In Tunisia the power went to
"Troika alliance that was dominated by Rashid al-Ghannushi's Islamist Ennahda Movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tunisian_political_crisis
In Egypt the elections brought to power Muslim Brotherhood.
Some of the protesters MAY want something different but the religious groups
had been better organized and very active politically.
Post by Pete Barrett
(This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much;
Yes, reads like "Obama administration's view on the Arab Spring". Especially
all denials of our involvements (how was it, "thou art protest too much"?
I'm not very good in the Old English :-)). "We saw, we bombed, he died" just
as "F--k the EU" in one more "revolution". :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar (Wiki
tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police and committed
suicide in protest.
Yes, but it did not start just because of this single act and one has to ask
why it did not happen many years earlier? Was he the 1st victim of a
dictatorial regime? BTW, dictatorial regime that allows independent labor
unions, political parties, association of the independent lawyers, etc. is
not a true dictatorial regime (on that issue I have certain experience).

The mass protests are rarely absolutely spontaneous: they require an organized
nucleus to start and in all these countries one of the organized components
are inevitably Islamists. They are not necessarily the most visible part of
the protests but they are here when the useful idiots finish doing their
work.
Post by Pete Barrett
A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but originally
it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the secularism.)
It was a protest against many things with the economic ones being the real
trigger (in Tunisia) but the question is not what was a trigger but who was
going to gain. The answer in Tunisia, Egypt and a long list of other places
all the way back to Russia of 1917 is one: those with a better organization
and in the modern Arab world it is Islamists. Fortunately, in Egypt the military
had even better organization but it seems that in Turkey they did not.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-21 17:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning.
A lot can be said about that article but who gain from ...er...
"democratization" in Tunisia and Egypt? In Tunisia the power went to
"Troika alliance that was dominated by Rashid al-Ghannushi's Islamist Ennahda Movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tunisian_political_crisis In
Egypt the elections brought to power Muslim Brotherhood. Some of the
protesters MAY want something different but the religious groups had been
better organized and very active politically.
Post by Pete Barrett
(This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much;
Yes, reads like "Obama administration's view on the Arab Spring".
Especially all denials of our involvements (how was it, "thou art protest
too much"? I'm not very good in the Old English :-)). "We saw, we bombed,
he died" just as "F--k the EU" in one more "revolution". :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar (Wiki
tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police and
committed suicide in protest.
Yes, but it did not start just because of this single act and one has to
ask why it did not happen many years earlier? Was he the 1st victim of a
dictatorial regime? BTW, dictatorial regime that allows independent labor
unions, political parties, association of the independent lawyers, etc. is
not a true dictatorial regime (on that issue I have certain experience).
The mass protests are rarely absolutely spontaneous: they require an
organized nucleus to start and in all these countries one of the organized
components are inevitably Islamists. They are not necessarily the most
visible part of the protests but they are here when the useful idiots
finish doing their work.
Post by Pete Barrett
A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but
originally it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the
secularism.)
It was a protest against many things with the economic ones being the real
trigger (in Tunisia) but the question is not what was a trigger but who
was going to gain. The answer in Tunisia, Egypt and a long list of other
places all the way back to Russia of 1917 is one: those with a better
organization and in the modern Arab world it is Islamists. Fortunately, in
Egypt the military had even better organization but it seems that in
Turkey they did not.
This, of course, is why we have the BoP! I duck out now!
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-21 19:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning.
A lot can be said about that article but who gain from ...er...
"democratization" in Tunisia and Egypt? In Tunisia the power went to
"Troika alliance that was dominated by Rashid al-Ghannushi's Islamist
Ennahda Movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tunisian_political_crisis In
Egypt the elections brought to power Muslim Brotherhood. Some of the
protesters MAY want something different but the religious groups had been
better organized and very active politically.
Post by Pete Barrett
(This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much;
Yes, reads like "Obama administration's view on the Arab Spring".
Especially all denials of our involvements (how was it, "thou art protest
too much"? I'm not very good in the Old English :-)). "We saw, we bombed,
he died" just as "F--k the EU" in one more "revolution". :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar (Wiki
tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police and
committed suicide in protest.
Yes, but it did not start just because of this single act and one has to
ask why it did not happen many years earlier? Was he the 1st victim of a
dictatorial regime? BTW, dictatorial regime that allows independent labor
unions, political parties, association of the independent lawyers, etc. is
not a true dictatorial regime (on that issue I have certain experience).
The mass protests are rarely absolutely spontaneous: they require an
organized nucleus to start and in all these countries one of the organized
components are inevitably Islamists. They are not necessarily the most
visible part of the protests but they are here when the useful idiots
finish doing their work.
Post by Pete Barrett
A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but
originally it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the
secularism.)
It was a protest against many things with the economic ones being the real
trigger (in Tunisia) but the question is not what was a trigger but who
was going to gain. The answer in Tunisia, Egypt and a long list of other
places all the way back to Russia of 1917 is one: those with a better
organization and in the modern Arab world it is Islamists. Fortunately, in
Egypt the military had even better organization but it seems that in
Turkey they did not.
This, of course, is why we have the BoP!
Somehow I suspect that you are not talking about Balance of Payment so I don't
have a clue.
Post by Pete Barrett
I duck out now!
1st explain what you are talking about.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-22 15:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with
a purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even
more oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning.
A lot can be said about that article but who gain from ...er...
"democratization" in Tunisia and Egypt? In Tunisia the power went to
"Troika alliance that was dominated by Rashid al-Ghannushi's Islamist
Ennahda Movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tunisian_political_crisis
In Egypt the elections brought to power Muslim Brotherhood. Some of the
protesters MAY want something different but the religious groups had
been better organized and very active politically.
Post by Pete Barrett
(This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much;
Yes, reads like "Obama administration's view on the Arab Spring".
Especially all denials of our involvements (how was it, "thou art
protest too much"? I'm not very good in the Old English :-)). "We saw,
we bombed, he died" just as "F--k the EU" in one more "revolution". :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar
(Wiki tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police
and committed suicide in protest.
Yes, but it did not start just because of this single act and one has
to ask why it did not happen many years earlier? Was he the 1st victim
of a dictatorial regime? BTW, dictatorial regime that allows
independent labor unions, political parties, association of the
independent lawyers, etc. is not a true dictatorial regime (on that
issue I have certain experience).
The mass protests are rarely absolutely spontaneous: they require an
organized nucleus to start and in all these countries one of the
organized components are inevitably Islamists. They are not necessarily
the most visible part of the protests but they are here when the useful
idiots finish doing their work.
Post by Pete Barrett
A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but
originally it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the
secularism.)
It was a protest against many things with the economic ones being the
real trigger (in Tunisia) but the question is not what was a trigger
but who was going to gain. The answer in Tunisia, Egypt and a long list
of other places all the way back to Russia of 1917 is one: those with a
better organization and in the modern Arab world it is Islamists.
Fortunately, in Egypt the military had even better organization but it
seems that in Turkey they did not.
This, of course, is why we have the BoP!
Somehow I suspect that you are not talking about Balance of Payment so I
don't have a clue.
Post by Pete Barrett
I duck out now!
1st explain what you are talking about.
Ban on Politics. It's been a rule in this newsgroup for years, though it's
not always observed.

2 people can have very different views on something which happened 100 years
ago, and still debate it without rancour. When it comes to something which
happened 10 years ago or less, that's no longer true, and things can get
very ugly very quickly.

Some things, of course, are more controversial than others, but the Arab
Spring is too close in time for me to discuss without risking a flame war.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-22 19:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with
a purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even
more oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning.
A lot can be said about that article but who gain from ...er...
"democratization" in Tunisia and Egypt? In Tunisia the power went to
"Troika alliance that was dominated by Rashid al-Ghannushi's Islamist
Ennahda Movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tunisian_political_crisis
In Egypt the elections brought to power Muslim Brotherhood. Some of the
protesters MAY want something different but the religious groups had
been better organized and very active politically.
Post by Pete Barrett
(This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much;
Yes, reads like "Obama administration's view on the Arab Spring".
Especially all denials of our involvements (how was it, "thou art
protest too much"? I'm not very good in the Old English :-)). "We saw,
we bombed, he died" just as "F--k the EU" in one more "revolution". :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar
(Wiki tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police
and committed suicide in protest.
Yes, but it did not start just because of this single act and one has
to ask why it did not happen many years earlier? Was he the 1st victim
of a dictatorial regime? BTW, dictatorial regime that allows
independent labor unions, political parties, association of the
independent lawyers, etc. is not a true dictatorial regime (on that
issue I have certain experience).
The mass protests are rarely absolutely spontaneous: they require an
organized nucleus to start and in all these countries one of the
organized components are inevitably Islamists. They are not necessarily
the most visible part of the protests but they are here when the useful
idiots finish doing their work.
Post by Pete Barrett
A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but
originally it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the
secularism.)
It was a protest against many things with the economic ones being the
real trigger (in Tunisia) but the question is not what was a trigger
but who was going to gain. The answer in Tunisia, Egypt and a long list
of other places all the way back to Russia of 1917 is one: those with a
better organization and in the modern Arab world it is Islamists.
Fortunately, in Egypt the military had even better organization but it
seems that in Turkey they did not.
This, of course, is why we have the BoP!
Somehow I suspect that you are not talking about Balance of Payment so I
don't have a clue.
Post by Pete Barrett
I duck out now!
1st explain what you are talking about.
Ban on Politics. It's been a rule in this newsgroup for years, though it's
not always observed.
2 people can have very different views on something which happened 100 years
ago, and still debate it without rancour. When it comes to something which
happened 10 years ago or less, that's no longer true, and things can get
very ugly very quickly.
Some things, of course, are more controversial than others, but the Arab
Spring is too close in time for me to discuss without risking a flame war.
Can't agree more. As you noticed, I'm always trying to get as far away from
the touchy subjects as possible. There is ONE exception on which I'll react (as
happened in this thread).
t***@go.com
2017-07-22 17:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring started as a protest against oppression.
Not at all. It started as a protest against the secular rulers with a
purpose to replace them with the religious fanatics who are even more
oppressive.
Hardly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes doesn't
mention any religious motivation in the beginning.
A lot can be said about that article but who gain from ...er...
"democratization" in Tunisia and Egypt? In Tunisia the power went to
"Troika alliance that was dominated by Rashid al-Ghannushi's Islamist
Ennahda Movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tunisian_political_crisis In
Egypt the elections brought to power Muslim Brotherhood. Some of the
protesters MAY want something different but the religious groups had been
better organized and very active politically.
Post by Pete Barrett
(This is probably a bit
too recent, and thus controversial, for Wiki to be relied on too much;
Yes, reads like "Obama administration's view on the Arab Spring".
Especially all denials of our involvements (how was it, "thou art protest
too much"? I'm not very good in the Old English :-)). "We saw, we bombed,
he died" just as "F--k the EU" in one more "revolution". :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
but
my recollection is that it started in Tunisia after a street pedlar (Wiki
tells me it was Mohamad Bouazizi) was beaten up by the police and
committed suicide in protest.
Yes, but it did not start just because of this single act and one has to
ask why it did not happen many years earlier? Was he the 1st victim of a
dictatorial regime? BTW, dictatorial regime that allows independent labor
unions, political parties, association of the independent lawyers, etc. is
not a true dictatorial regime (on that issue I have certain experience).
The mass protests are rarely absolutely spontaneous: they require an
organized nucleus to start and in all these countries one of the organized
components are inevitably Islamists. They are not necessarily the most
visible part of the protests but they are here when the useful idiots
finish doing their work.
Post by Pete Barrett
A lot of the opposition was religious, particularly in
Egypt and Libya, because a lot of the dictators were secular, but
originally it was a protest against the dictatorship, not the
secularism.)
It was a protest against many things with the economic ones being the real
trigger (in Tunisia) but the question is not what was a trigger but who
was going to gain. The answer in Tunisia, Egypt and a long list of other
places all the way back to Russia of 1917 is one: those with a better
organization and in the modern Arab world it is Islamists. Fortunately, in
Egypt the military had even better organization but it seems that in
Turkey they did not.
This, of course, is why we have the BoP!
Somehow I suspect that you are not talking about Balance of Payment so I don't
have a clue.
Post by Pete Barrett
I duck out now!
1st explain what you are talking about.
'Bop' is short for 'to punch'. In theory
it might be an abbreviation for something
else, but it is a verbal succor punch meant
to substitute for violence.

Someone can call something 'politics' or
'not politics' based upon whim, so someone
might claim that it means something else,
but in practice the person making the claim
simply has a closed mind on the subject
being discussed, and so will use verbal
violence ('bop') to try to present the
idea that even presenting opposing views
is not allowed. When a poster mentions
it they will ignore the fact that they
have already presented the subject in
previous posts, and will only invoke it
against opposing views.

This is because everything can be called
'politics' and 'not politics' based upon
whim.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-19 00:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
That would require Alien Space Bats - anybody who has read anything at
all about the 1967 or 1973 wars would know that of all the Arab
countries Iraq was the one the Israelis hated most.

This isn't just 1/2" cardboard counters on a hexagon map you know.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 02:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
That would require Alien Space Bats - anybody who has read anything at
all about the 1967 or 1973 wars would know that of all the Arab
countries Iraq was the one the Israelis hated most.
This isn't just 1/2" cardboard counters on a hexagon map you know.
Think about it from both of their point of views. Iraq's losing the war. It desperately needs something to turn the tide. Israel is the most powerful country in the region. For Israel, any one of the combatants getting nukes would be a nightmare, let alone all of them. So, what's it going to do? This alliance would make perfect sense under these circumstances.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 02:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
That would require Alien Space Bats - anybody who has read anything at
all about the 1967 or 1973 wars would know that of all the Arab
countries Iraq was the one the Israelis hated most.
This isn't just 1/2" cardboard counters on a hexagon map you know.
For Israel, any one of the combatants getting nukes would be a nightmare, let alone all of them. So, what's it going to do?
jerry kraus
2017-07-19 13:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
That would require Alien Space Bats - anybody who has read anything at
all about the 1967 or 1973 wars would know that of all the Arab
countries Iraq was the one the Israelis hated most.
This isn't just 1/2" cardboard counters on a hexagon map you know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
For Israel, any one of the combatants getting nukes would be a nightmare, let alone all of them. So, what's it going to do?
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally empty threats.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-19 15:05:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.

What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 16:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
jerry kraus
2017-07-19 18:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
Well, Josh, if you're so convinced Israel can easily destroy the infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons, what's to stop Israel from simply destroying them in all three countries? After all, in this POD they're all busy fighting each other, anyway. And, why would Israel expect any of these countries to stand by an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, anyway?
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 19:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
Well, Josh, if you're so convinced Israel can easily destroy the infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons, what's to stop Israel from simply destroying them in all three countries? After all, in this POD they're all busy fighting each other, anyway. And, why would Israel expect any of these countries to stand by an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, anyway?
Geography would present an obstacle in the case of Iran. That may be one reason they haven't bombed Iran's nuclear facilities on OTL. If Iraq reneged on the deal, the Israelis could always bomb their enrichment facility like they did in '81.
jerry kraus
2017-07-19 19:20:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
Well, Josh, if you're so convinced Israel can easily destroy the infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons, what's to stop Israel from simply destroying them in all three countries? After all, in this POD they're all busy fighting each other, anyway. And, why would Israel expect any of these countries to stand by an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, anyway?
Geography would present an obstacle in the case of Iran. That may be one reason they haven't bombed Iran's nuclear facilities on OTL. If Iraq reneged on the deal, the Israelis could always bomb their enrichment facility like they did in '81.
In that case, Josh, you're acknowledging that Iran can really develop nuclear weapons anytime they want to, assuming they haven't already. So, what's the fuss, then? I guess Israel simply has to get used to the idea of having enemies with nuclear weapons, just like they have to get used to the idea of Israel having nuclear weapons.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 20:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
Well, Josh, if you're so convinced Israel can easily destroy the infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons, what's to stop Israel from simply destroying them in all three countries? After all, in this POD they're all busy fighting each other, anyway. And, why would Israel expect any of these countries to stand by an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, anyway?
Geography would present an obstacle in the case of Iran. That may be one reason they haven't bombed Iran's nuclear facilities on OTL. If Iraq reneged on the deal, the Israelis could always bomb their enrichment facility like they did in '81.
In that case, Josh, you're acknowledging that Iran can really develop nuclear weapons anytime they want to, assuming they haven't already. So, what's the fuss, then? I guess Israel simply has to get used to the idea of having enemies with nuclear weapons, just like they have to get used to the idea of Israel having nuclear weapons.
The Israelis don't want any other country in the Middle East to have nukes. They've used force to prevent another country from getting them and would do so again.
jerry kraus
2017-07-19 20:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
Well, Josh, if you're so convinced Israel can easily destroy the infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons, what's to stop Israel from simply destroying them in all three countries? After all, in this POD they're all busy fighting each other, anyway. And, why would Israel expect any of these countries to stand by an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, anyway?
Geography would present an obstacle in the case of Iran. That may be one reason they haven't bombed Iran's nuclear facilities on OTL. If Iraq reneged on the deal, the Israelis could always bomb their enrichment facility like they did in '81.
In that case, Josh, you're acknowledging that Iran can really develop nuclear weapons anytime they want to, assuming they haven't already. So, what's the fuss, then? I guess Israel simply has to get used to the idea of having enemies with nuclear weapons, just like they have to get used to the idea of Israel having nuclear weapons.
The Israelis don't want any other country in the Middle East to have nukes. They've used force to prevent another country from getting them and would do so again.
Sure, they would, Josh, if they knew they could do it, and get away with it. But, that doesn't apply to Iran, as you've acknowledged. They've been threatening to bomb Iran for twenty years, it never happens. Israel can't always get what Israel wants. Iran is too far away and too big for a nuclear program to be readily disrupted there by bombing. And, the Israelis know it. So, basically, the Israelis have to tacitly accept a nuclear armed Iran, whether they want to, or not.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 20:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear pr=
ogram as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there =
is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally emp=
ty threats. =20
Once the Arab state gets nukes yes.
What Israel is prepared to do to prevent this was demonstrated at
Osirak.
But, it was just Iraq that was trying to get nuclear weapons in 1981. In this scenario, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all trying to get them.
Well, Josh, if you're so convinced Israel can easily destroy the infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons, what's to stop Israel from simply destroying them in all three countries? After all, in this POD they're all busy fighting each other, anyway. And, why would Israel expect any of these countries to stand by an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, anyway?
Geography would present an obstacle in the case of Iran. That may be one reason they haven't bombed Iran's nuclear facilities on OTL. If Iraq reneged on the deal, the Israelis could always bomb their enrichment facility like they did in '81.
In that case, Josh, you're acknowledging that Iran can really develop nuclear weapons anytime they want to, assuming they haven't already. So, what's the fuss, then? I guess Israel simply has to get used to the idea of having enemies with nuclear weapons, just like they have to get used to the idea of Israel having nuclear weapons.
The Israelis don't want any other country in the Middle East to have nukes. They've used force to prevent another country from getting them and would do so again.
Sure, they would, Josh, if they knew they could do it, and get away with it. But, that doesn't apply to Iran, as you've acknowledged. They've been threatening to bomb Iran for twenty years, it never happens. Israel can't always get what Israel wants. Iran is too far away and too big for a nuclear program to be readily disrupted there by bombing. And, the Israelis know it. So, basically, the Israelis have to tacitly accept a nuclear armed Iran, whether they want to, or not.
Read my original comment.
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 16:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by j***@gmail.com
The Arab Spring spreads to Iraq.
No. Saddam Hussein was actually a highly intelligent and a highly effective leader. His ruthlessness was necessary, effective and respected, in context. That's why the United States hated him so much. We don't like strong competition, you know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and Syria support rebels in each other's countries, leading to war. Iran enters the war on Syria's side. Syria and Iran are winning the war. Out of desperation, Iraq restarts its nuclear weapons program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons programs take several years, at the very least, to make substantial progress. Unless the "war" is going to last for decades, this is unlikely to be a viable military strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria and Iran follow suit. The Israelis don't want any of them to get nuclear weapons. Israel offers to enter the war on Iraq's side if Iraq abandons its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agrees. Israel enters the war on Iraq's side and turns the tide. Iraq and Israel are victorious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is perfectly happy to make deals with the Devil, but, frequently, the Devil won't make deals with Israel!
That would require Alien Space Bats - anybody who has read anything at
all about the 1967 or 1973 wars would know that of all the Arab
countries Iraq was the one the Israelis hated most.
This isn't just 1/2" cardboard counters on a hexagon map you know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by j***@gmail.com
For Israel, any one of the combatants getting nukes would be a nightmare, let alone all of them. So, what's it going to do?
Josh, I think we can use the behavior of Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program as the model, here. They will do absolutely nothing, because there is absolutely nothing they can do. Other than making a lot of totally empty threats.
Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. In 2012, Mossad reported that it wasn't taking the steps needed to make nuclear weapons. Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.
Loading...