OT: Done Deal WARNING: POLITICS

[red5angel]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/07/sproject.irq.uk.troops/index.html

It's pretty much a done deal at this point.....

[Oso]

wasn't much doubt was there.

Here's a question: Why did we stop when we did 12 years ago?

I'm not as much of a history/politics buff as I would like to be
but it seems as if we didn't finish things in 91.


Does anyone think we are really going to remove him for good
this time?

[red5angel]

Oso, we go in again, he will be pulled out of power, no doubt about that, whether we actually nail him personally, well, thats another question altogether.

As for 12 years ago, hard to say. I think they thought the cost would be too much. They had accomplished their original goal with speed and a low cost in money and lives, it looked too good and if it went on it would have started to get ugly. We pushed the republican guard back but they were starting to dig in

[yenhoi]

Oso: bad political decisions by washington DC.

This means nothing red5, nothing!

Anyways, the west still has a few weeks of buildup and waiting before there is any real threat.

Jan 27th: Iraqi Independance Day, 2003.

:rolleyes:

[Ford Prefect]

Here's a question: Why did we stop when we did 12 years ago?

In order to gain support in the Middle East for the operation, our goal had to be to only free Kuwait. The surrounding nations would not back an invasion of Iraq. Bush agreed and kept his word. If anything, it showed the other leaders that we'd stick to the deal even if it went against public sentiment.

[red5angel]

"This means nothing red5, nothing!"

I would have agreed had it just been us (last week) building up reserves, but you don't get other countries involved unless you are serious.
This whole thing with the UN weapons inspectors is a ruse, it gives us time to build up our forces and prepare them for war in the desert. We have been doing this since 9/11 and we are, whether anyone likes it or not, going to take military action with Iraq.

[yenhoi]

Sure, sure.

We arent getting serious, this is Iraq, not Serbia that we are going to crush. Irq is in violation to the UN, England is a part of that international body.

hah. What the brits are doing is called sabre rattling.

Not to say that the United States and its coat tails arent going to invade Iraq, and soon, just not so soon - we have almost 3 weeks until we need to get aprehensive and start betting etc.

;)

[yenhoi]

Note: there are many others out there rattling their sabres, not as loud, or as shiny. :eek:

[SaMantis]

As for 12 years ago, hard to say. I think they thought the cost would be too much. They had accomplished their original goal with speed and a low cost in money and lives, it looked too good and if it went on it would have started to get ugly. We pushed the republican guard back but they were starting to dig in

The first part is partially true, except the "cost" was feared to be public opinion in favor of Iraq.

A couple weeks after the '91 ceasefire I interviewed a tank commander who had come back to Riyadh for some R&R. He was extremely frustrated when his unit was ordered to stop -- don't have his exact words, but he basically said, "we had a clear road from Basra to Baghdad." The Republican Guard had pulled completely out of Kuwait and were heading to Basra for a last-ditch defense.

The coalition expected this and the main plan was to let them run to Basra and then cut them off from northern Iraq by surrounding the city. The ground attack moved so quickly that most of the Guard was still on the road when the coalition advance approached them -- not dug in.

This sergeant said that they were waiting for an airstrike to take out most of these guys and then they would mop up the rest, surround Basra and let rebels inside the city take care of the remainder.

But instead, the order came down to stop all operations (this was even before a formal cease-fire was declared).

Instead of wiping out the Republican Guard this guy had to watch as they drove northwards past his unit, waving cheerfully. The Guard soldiers who'd made it to Basra, with no coalition to stop them, slaughtered the rebels.

The main reason the advance was stopped was that Bush & Washington politicos saw the carnage along the main road from Kuwait City to Iraq, freaked out and stopped the air raid(s) that would have done the same to the Guard, because they feared public opinion.

An invasion of Iraq was nixed before the ground war started for the reasons stated by Ford Prefect. However a big goal was to destroy the Guard.

[red5angel]

SaMantis - I can agree to some degree but if you look at the facts a good portion of the RG were on the run and while it is easy to to have an air war against armor, once the armor was gone it turns into urban combat with elite forces, even if they are just the Iraqi republican guard.
Just north of the location I was stationed at the end of the war we shelled guard units for a few nights but reported next to no appreciable damage. They were talking about having to go out on foot and dig them out.
The tankers had the easy part, it's when all the tanks disappear that the troule begins and I think on top of some of the things you pointed out, they knew that and weren't ready for it because of the deals we had made with other countries just to be there in the first place. We settled for containment but not this time.

[Stranger]

More than just courting ME favor...

The First Gulf War was conducted completely under a United Nations Security Council resolution. The resolution was to free Kuwait and limit Saddam's potential to stir up sh1t in the future. The UNSC did not authorize his Saddam's removal from power.


Bush and Co. got squeemish after the attack on the "Highway of Death" because they feared loss of popular support on the homefront, loss of coalition members when Arabs become offended by the slaughter of fellow Arabs, and loss of support from the more dove-ish nations of the world who only cautiously endorsed the UN resolution. We tried to address these concerns because we wanted to make "right" all that had been labeled "wrong" about Vietnam.

[Oso]

thanks, some of what I thought, some I haven't thought about.

matt

[WinterPalm]

America did finish what they started. Even by fouling it themselves. With all respect due, the UN decided to help Kuwait, after being invaded by Iraq. This was started by America by funding and building Iraq during the eighties. After Iraq forces left Kuwait, America pushed them back but could not continue due to their UN mandate and popular protest worldwide. It seems people had the idea that Bush Sr., an oil businessman with weapons manufacturing ties, was doing this war for money and to keep disruption in the middle east. Since America funded Iraq and supported them with full knowledge of using illegal weapons against the Iranians, their plea that it was justifiable and that Iraq was evil because they were using these weapons against Kuwait was quickly seen through by anyone with even the simplest education and desire for truth.
So yeah, they finished it and now they are the ones doing the illegal invading. The UN Charter says, that all possible measures must be taken before a military buildup or threat can even be considered or mentioned. However, America says that the previous security council resoultion is still valid even though, as myself and others here have pointed out, it was only to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and stop the use of illegal weapons which they should never have been supplied with. THis aside, almost since day one, America has been sending troops into neighboring areas of Iraq and intensifying their military buildup including considering the draft, huge monetary bills to support and boost the military, using reptilian rhetoric about goodness that transcends propaganda and lends a comic book facade over eveything almost like a spagetti western on LSD.

Aside from all this, Korea is being all but ignored and they are the ones that are currently violating international agreement. Or how about Pakistan and India? Where Pakistan made it clear that a war would not be conventional? WHat the hell does that mean? There are some real problems here in the world that the UN needs to be seriously concerned with and right now, due to sanctions and now inspectors, Iraq is not a major world player. Unless you consider the oil...