[ExI] israelis defeat physics
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 18:45:43 UTC 2009
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:09 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
<painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> They had (and have) many reasons to go in war. Good reasons? I don't think
> so. But we know this after the fact. Had he won the war, he would be
> considered a successful head of state, great conqueror, etc.
> The conflict over the Shat-el-Arab is a conflict over OIL and over control
> on the arab population inside Iran and Iraq and on the shiite population
> inside and outside Iraq.
> He miscalculate (not so much) the state of disarray of Iran and of its armed
> forces and overvalued the power of his armed forces.
Let us say that in hindsight it is not always a good idea to attack
countries in revolutionary supposed "disarray". See the European
powers that attacked France at the end of the eighteenth century...
> The US ambassador tell Saddam that, for the US, the border disputes with
> Kuwait were not US matter. He understood that he could invade the Kuwait and
> annext it without anyone doing nothing apart talking.
Exactly. Of course, a politician should know that the the truth of
what he is being told cannot always being relied upon... :-)
> This is a standard arab / muslim procedure. To take hostages to force people
> to do things they don't like. Obviusly is a stupid thing to do with the
> wrong people.
Indeed. But even worse is *releasing* the hostages in exchange for
nothing when the damage is done.
> Reasonable for who?
Saddam was *always* been willing to accept comrpomises. Only,
compromises that were not offered any more, that he had no more enough
bargaining power to impose, and that he had refused before in the
delusional opinion of being in a position to obtain more... :-)
Sure, this is armchair strategism, and in hindsight. But yet, some
people appear to have been mostly unlucky, some others appear to have
added much of their own.
More information about the extropy-chat