Is it remotely possible....

[jimmygun]

Is it remotely possible that leaders of 'rogue' nations such as Libya and Syria are thinking twice about their tenure in office now that the US has toppled the regimes in other countries?

[Soapy Sam]

It is remotely possible that Gaddafi thinks he's from planet X.
Yes. He got very quiet after Reagan bombed him. For a while. He kept funding terrorism though.

Perhaps we should bomb Tel Aviv next and see if it pulls Israel into line?

Edit. Subbed "we" for "you", because a) We were in on it too and b) Jimmy is in Canada, not the USA.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
It is remotely possible that Gaddafi thinks he's from planet X.
Yes. He got very quiet after Reagan bombed him. For a while. He kept funding terrorism though.

Perhaps we should bomb Tel Aviv next and see if it pulls Israel into line?

Edit. Subbed "we" for "you", because a) We were in on it too and b) Jimmy is in Canada, not the USA.

You mean bomb Hamas if you're going to use terorism as a basis for your reason to bomb. And that would also mean seeing if the Palestinian Authority pulls into line.

[Zero]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Is it remotely possible that leaders of 'rogue' nations such as Libya and Syria are thinking twice about their tenure in office now that the US has toppled the regimes in other countries? It is also possible that the leaders of 'rouge' nations are stepping up their own WMD programs, because they view America as a loose cannon that won't be swayed by diplomacy.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
It is also possible that the leaders of 'rouge' nations are stepping up their own WMD programs, because they view America as a loose cannon that won't be swayed by diplomacy.

Well you can't mean North Korea. They made it a point to mention theirs and then ask for concessions if they were to dismantle them. Kinda like putting a gun to your head and telling the cops you'll shoot if you don't get a free meal.

As for not being swayed by diplomacy, I'm going to have to remind you to read and put things into context. Diplomacy is what worked with Lybia.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


Well you can't mean North Korea. They made it a point to mention theirs and then ask for concessions if they were to dismantle them. Kinda like putting a gun to your head and telling the cops you'll shoot if you don't get a free meal.

As for not being swayed by diplomacy, I'm going to have to remind you to read and put things into context. Diplomacy is what worked with Lybia.
I was just speaking hypothetically, of course...some leaders MAY feel that way.

[jimmygun]

It is also possible that the leaders of 'rouge' nations are stepping up their own WMD programs, because they view America as a loose cannon that won't be swayed by diplomacy.

Ignoring the diplomacy that has been going on in Libya for the last ten months, ignoring the diplomacy that has been going on in the Middle East for who knows how long, ignoring the diplomacy that has been going on in Korea for x months?

[Zero]

Originally posted by jimmygun


Ignoring the diplomacy that has been going on in Libya for the last ten months, ignoring the diplomacy that has been going on in the Middle East for who knows how long, ignoring the diplomacy that has been going on in Korea for x months? N Korea gets diplomacy because it is a credible military threat, and cannot just be steamrolled like Iraq. I'm sure that's how they see it anyways.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
N Korea gets diplomacy because it is a credible military threat, and cannot just be steamrolled like Iraq. I'm sure that's how they see it anyways.

Not quite Zero. Our military can easily steamroll N Korea; the problem is all the artillery pointed at Seoul and other parts of S Korea. Any move we make would immediately lead to thousands if not hundreds of thousands dead S Koreans. If we could find a way to disable all N Korean artillery in one quick move, there would not be the same kind of diplomacy going on today.

[jimmygun]

Zero...

Let me get this straight...If the US invades Iraq they are guilty of never using diplomacy, but if I point out an example of them using diplomacy that doesn't count. Is that about right?

[Soapy Sam]

Troll-
re your comment "You mean bomb Hamas if you're going to use terorism as a basis for your reason to bomb. And that would also mean seeing if the Palestinian Authority pulls into line."

Not in this case (The case of this thread). Jimmygun's query was essentially- "in view of recent events, does gunboat diplomacy frighten the leaders of rogue states?"

Lest you misunderstand me- I do not advocate attacking Israel, I merely ask JG if he thinks it fits his question as an example. I am opposed to bombing people on principle. (Iraqi or Israeli , but especially me.)

The term "Rogue State" is critical here. Hamas is not a state and presents a tricky target for gunboat diplomacy. (Ask the Israeli Air Force). So does Al Qaeda. Bombing Arafat et al has not achieved the security the Israeli government keeps promising it's people- nor has it's military excursions into neighbouring states. It breeds hatred and more martyrs. I suspect Israel has far better on- the-ground intelligence than the allies have in Afghanistan or Iraq; if it worked, they would have achieved it.


Massed military attack is effective against a real state- a country- a geographical entity which can't hide. It is most effective against countries with valuable assets (including areas of high population density, if (and only if), the leaders are of the same ethnic group as the target populace). It is also most effective where there is a major difference between the attacker and the attacked in military ability.
The reason Arafat can't be upset by military action is threefold- He has been under attack much of his life. He is getting old and is more afraid of losing power than his life and his "state" has little to lose anyway, in material terms. Of course he can be killed, but what would this achieve? (Unless done by Palestinians, in which case the effects might be major- so long as they did not turn out to be Mossad agents).

I wonder if assassination of key leaders is the way to settle many perpetual disputes.The Israeli tendency to target individuals suggests they may be thinking along the same lines.
(Pardon my cynicism, but can it be the reason western leaders resist the use of assassination is less a moral stance than because they think it might start a trend?) Maybe we need to get the leaders back on the battlefield, leading from the front?

.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
It is also possible that the leaders of 'rouge' nations are stepping up their own WMD programs, because they view America as a loose cannon that won't be swayed by diplomacy.

?? So you're saying these leaders would step up their WMD programs so they can be wiped out like Iraq??