Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
war in Iraq ?
- Thread starter kafka
- Start date
- Status
You know, I can just picture the same type of conversations going on in the 1930's.
Should we go to war with Germany and Hitler?
The allies chose not to, Hitler built up a formitable war machine and the rest is history. Luckily we were able to stop him.
Anyone who thinks that Hussain is not building weapons of mass destruction obviously doesn't do much with his brain.
Given time, Hussain will build up enough to cause great havoc in the Middle East, Europe, and USA.
In this day and age, you have to have forsight. You can't sit back and wait for another Pearl Harbor to happen before you take action.
Some people and countries are content with sitting back until something happens to them.
I give Bush credit for taking this stand. He knows this will be a very unpopular position with alot of people in this country, and with alot of other countries.
Should we go to war with Germany and Hitler?
The allies chose not to, Hitler built up a formitable war machine and the rest is history. Luckily we were able to stop him.
Anyone who thinks that Hussain is not building weapons of mass destruction obviously doesn't do much with his brain.
Given time, Hussain will build up enough to cause great havoc in the Middle East, Europe, and USA.
In this day and age, you have to have forsight. You can't sit back and wait for another Pearl Harbor to happen before you take action.
Some people and countries are content with sitting back until something happens to them.
I give Bush credit for taking this stand. He knows this will be a very unpopular position with alot of people in this country, and with alot of other countries.
Well he has managed to stay in power for something like two decades despite being unpopular at home (despite enforced support for his regime) and a pariah abroad. Can't be too stupid. He's not a good man but he's a crafty man who knows how to play the game. He knows the consequences of attacking the US. He won't do it. Some people have even suggested (sorry no link on this yet) that he only attacked Kuwait because he mistakenly believed that he had the State Dept's tacit approval.
The absolute superiority of the US military machine these days would make it impossible for Hussein to ever become that powerful relative to his opponents. Besides as I have said elsewhere, Hitler was breaking the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, other nations knew (or if not, it was an act of willful ignorance) and no one said anything. We are working now to hold Saddam to his treaties and thus prevent him from being emboldened as Hitler was.
Perhaps he's building weapons, but who knows until inspectors are able to gather the appropriate information? Sure, Donny Rumsfeld's got some neat satellite images but all they seem to show is the Iraq has built one rectangular building where another once stood. All the other information you're getting there is someone else's conjecture. As to whether Saddam would use his weapons you seem pretty sure that he will. How is it that you're so sure? Lots of states have weapons like that, what about N. Korea or Libya or Iran? Can you tell us if they will use their weapons? Why is that everyone assumes Hussein is somewhere between irrational and stark-raving mad? He's power-hungry and ruthless but he knows how to play the game of international power-politics.
According to the Bush doctrine Pearl Harbor was a pretty smart move though. The Japanese government realized that their interests were threatened by a foreign power and used a pre-emptive strike to attempt to diffuse that threat.
Some people want to look at all the facts and figure what's actually going on instead of justing toeing the party line. Some people think that war is not the only possible option for resolving this without capitulating to Saddam. In fact some people (such as myself) have grave reservations that a war in Iraq will only increase the risk of terrorism and possibly ignite a wider Middle Eastern conflict.
I give Bush's political operatives credit for figuring that Republicans score better on war issues than on, say, the economy or corporate corruption. We've known about Saddam for years and the fact that this is now such a ridiculously important issue is more than a little suspect. We also have Karl Rove on record as saying that the push war would come in the autumn because, from a marketing standpoint you don't introduce new products in August.
So this war is a political product to Mr. Rove. (Will post link on this, if anyone doubts me)JMO: The one problem with going after Satan I mean Saddam is:
How will the radicals react?? Will the cure be worse than the ailment?
What if 16,000 die if the US bombs Iraq while only 3,000 if the US doesn't??? (Pure useless speculation but yet you never know)
If Bush II wants to "do" Saddam he BETTER FINISH THE JOB UNLIKE HIS DADDY OR WE ARE GONNA BE SRCUUUUUUD!
How will the radicals react?? Will the cure be worse than the ailment?
What if 16,000 die if the US bombs Iraq while only 3,000 if the US doesn't??? (Pure useless speculation but yet you never know)
If Bush II wants to "do" Saddam he BETTER FINISH THE JOB UNLIKE HIS DADDY OR WE ARE GONNA BE SRCUUUUUUD!
That was not a suggestion, it is a matter of public record. To paraphrase, when Saddam asked US representative re. US position on Iraq-Kuwait dispute, he was told that 'US will not interfere in the affairs between these two states'.
What is NOT a matter of public record is why Saddam was told that, but some speculate that he was 'suckered' into attacking Kuwait so that US would have a pretext to get in and destroy Saddam's capability to wipe Israel off of the map.
We have been working on this for the past 4 years, with no changes. He keeps playing his little games.
He is also breaking a treaty. Part of the cease fire agreement of the Gulf War was having inspectors go in and make sure he isn't making weapons.
Believe what you want, but no one thought Germany would build itself back up so quickly after WW1, but look what happened.
Terrorism is a part of this world now. Even if we don't start a war with Iraq it will still exist. The terrorists will come up with another reason for hating us.
Dad Bush couldn't go after Saddam because of a little known law we had that states, The US will not go after heads of state.
Do you honestly think Dad Bush didn't want to go after Saddam? He just could not.
Our goal in that war was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, we achieved that.
Smash, to answer your questions:
Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2nd of August, 1991. US started bombing (if I remember right) in December of the same year.
There are no Kurds in Kuwait (if there are, they are very very few). Kurds live in the North of Iraq, North-West Iran, South-East Turkey. However, it is true that majority of Kuwait's population can't vote - women are not allowed to vote, and of course, the expats who form majority of the population.
As for why Saddam was left in power, please see my previous posts. I am not aware of anyone who knows what happened here who does NOT agree with that view. Saddam was left in place to make it possible for US to offer 'protection' to Kuwait & Saudi, to make it possible to have US army basses in this region and to make it easer to enact the 'final solution' when the time comes.
Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2nd of August, 1991. US started bombing (if I remember right) in December of the same year.
There are no Kurds in Kuwait (if there are, they are very very few). Kurds live in the North of Iraq, North-West Iran, South-East Turkey. However, it is true that majority of Kuwait's population can't vote - women are not allowed to vote, and of course, the expats who form majority of the population.
As for why Saddam was left in power, please see my previous posts. I am not aware of anyone who knows what happened here who does NOT agree with that view. Saddam was left in place to make it possible for US to offer 'protection' to Kuwait & Saudi, to make it possible to have US army basses in this region and to make it easer to enact the 'final solution' when the time comes.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,830
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
That is not true. They made it very clear that "getting" Hussein was NOT part of the objective. Puzzling, but that is indeed the case.
So the idea was indeed to leave the bad, bad man in place?
I don't recall being the only one who was suprised at the time that we didn't take him out. I don't doubt your recollection, I just find it odd that we'd just make him pull back to Iraq and call game over.
http://www.rense.com/general30/sdeee.htm Another viewpoint
Invalid Link Removed Includes timeline of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. According to this, "January 18, 1991
U.S. President George Bush tells the nation that the aim of the attack is to destroy Iraq's nuclear potential and its arsenal of chemical weapons and to liberate Kuwait."
And finally, the official Directive that launched Desert Storm: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed Includes timeline of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. According to this, "January 18, 1991
U.S. President George Bush tells the nation that the aim of the attack is to destroy Iraq's nuclear potential and its arsenal of chemical weapons and to liberate Kuwait."
And finally, the official Directive that launched Desert Storm: Invalid Link Removed
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,830
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Here's the thinking that went into that situation (in a nutshell, dramatically simplified). Because of the way the mind works in that part of the world, it seemed better to leave the bad, bad man in place but bruised from the A$$ kicking than to risk a replacement who would think he could get away with the same type of behavior.
Smart thinking, IMO, given what we knew at the time. As is often the case in human events, we misjudged the outcome.
Trust me, I get the angle. I guess I'd have a problem being part of a war where the goal was to leave the person supposedly at the root of the problem in power, capable of doing the same or worse, again in the future.
So a friend of mine tells me that on the radio, he hears that Saddam has 'authorized the use of biological weapons.'
Way to go, buddy!!!!
As a Persian Gulf Veteran, let me just say, this is ugly news.
Way to go, buddy!!!!
As a Persian Gulf Veteran, let me just say, this is ugly news.
I've heard before that Saddam has authorized his field commanders to use chemical weapons, if they have any, on any invading forces they come across.
Well, there is part of the problem. Our chemical/biological gear is at best only questionably effective. It is very hot and bulky; supposedly, even the Pentagon has acknowledged that it is not of much use outside of a training exercise. An Army NCO said that the only difference between the old M17 mask, and the newer one, is that they can change the filters without commiting suicide, but still it is not very effective. Now this is what bothers me. The government is going to send our young men and women into combat-into a possible chemical enviroment-with gear they know is next to useless. The military has had years to fix this problem, but as usual, they've done next to nothing.
Same with our small arms. Reports from Afghanistan are not good. It seems that many of our Rangers, and Marines are going into combat with weapons they've purchased with their own money. The M16, and 9MM Baretta seemed to have performed badly. The M249 squad automatic weapon didn't seem to fare much better. The M60 machine guns are old-effective, but getting up there in their years.
The Iraqi desert is also still highly toxic from the heavy use of depleted uranium. There seems to be no way to completely clean it up.
So in a nutshell, this is what I have a problem with. The President is hell bent on sending our warriors into combat, without the slightest concern for what happens to them. Pacman was dead on about one thing-wars are not won, until men on the ground secure territory. And again, as usual, our guys are not being provided with the best of equipment, or training(with very few exceptions.)
If our ground forces are gonna be sent to secure territory, then they deserve the very best equipment and training that can be provided.
Even guys like Col.David Hackworth believe this war should be postponed for a bit, so that our guys can get the training, and equipment that they need to do the job.
All of this will be very crucial if North Korea becomes a hot war again. That one will be tough going. The government owes our warriors the very best, if they expect them to come out on top. I hope the powers that be will wake up, and do something about this.
Well, there is part of the problem. Our chemical/biological gear is at best only questionably effective. It is very hot and bulky; supposedly, even the Pentagon has acknowledged that it is not of much use outside of a training exercise. An Army NCO said that the only difference between the old M17 mask, and the newer one, is that they can change the filters without commiting suicide, but still it is not very effective. Now this is what bothers me. The government is going to send our young men and women into combat-into a possible chemical enviroment-with gear they know is next to useless. The military has had years to fix this problem, but as usual, they've done next to nothing.
Same with our small arms. Reports from Afghanistan are not good. It seems that many of our Rangers, and Marines are going into combat with weapons they've purchased with their own money. The M16, and 9MM Baretta seemed to have performed badly. The M249 squad automatic weapon didn't seem to fare much better. The M60 machine guns are old-effective, but getting up there in their years.
The Iraqi desert is also still highly toxic from the heavy use of depleted uranium. There seems to be no way to completely clean it up.
So in a nutshell, this is what I have a problem with. The President is hell bent on sending our warriors into combat, without the slightest concern for what happens to them. Pacman was dead on about one thing-wars are not won, until men on the ground secure territory. And again, as usual, our guys are not being provided with the best of equipment, or training(with very few exceptions.)
If our ground forces are gonna be sent to secure territory, then they deserve the very best equipment and training that can be provided.
Even guys like Col.David Hackworth believe this war should be postponed for a bit, so that our guys can get the training, and equipment that they need to do the job.
All of this will be very crucial if North Korea becomes a hot war again. That one will be tough going. The government owes our warriors the very best, if they expect them to come out on top. I hope the powers that be will wake up, and do something about this.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
Imagine yourself on the bow of a warship, cruising around the Gulf, in the middle of the night, looking for floating mines with night-vision goggles...(been there, done that) and some of the chemical/biological "stuff" is released on ya (thankfully, didn't happen to me).
Say a prayer for those who are over there now.
Thanks.
b
Say a prayer for those who are over there now.
Thanks.
b
- Status
