The Gulf et al - an exercise in venture capital theory...

[LJK Raubvogel]

Dowding, since you obviously have the entire global political situation figured out, what is your solution? I have yet to hear any suggestions from you, only criticism.

[TheWobble]

 

A serious effort? The troops were a token? You surely must be kidding. We sent most of a light infantry division, and a Ranger battalion. That's hardly a token. Some of those men lost their lives, but I guess it was only a token to people like you. You have obviously never lost a good friend or family member in one of these "token efforts". It's people like you who convince me that we should not deploy troops to any of these toejamholes.

Rab, some people dont have any value for a life unless its thier own, and they are the ones whose life is worth the least.

Saddam murdered his own son and doesent try to hide it, he outright steals from his country forcing most of its citizens into poverty while he builds another palace, but yet somehow the US (and allies) is a real POS because we went in there and whooped his bellybutton for invading his neghbors, did it suite our needs YES, but that does not mean that it was wrong to go in and liberate them from that asswad NO, its not like we kicked everyone's bellybutton and decided that they owed us all its oil because we saved it.
Its funny how the nation that doese the most for this world (protection/financal aid etc..) is the one to be called evey name and the book and critisized for our every problem.


actually its not funny, its ENVY.

[AKDejaVu]

There is an age-old saying that applies here:

Damned if you do.  Damned if you don't.

AKDejaVu

[Tac]

"did it suite our needs YES, but that does not mean that it was wrong to go in and liberate them from that asswad NO, its not like we kicked everyone's bellybutton and decided that they owed us all its oil because we saved it"

Yes, it DESPERATELY suited your needs, yes you liberated your oil supply (like I said, this would not have happened if there was no oil involved), and you can bet your bellybutton that Kuwait has an agreement with the USA and allied nations for oil prices. Wake up buddy, this is bussiness, not woodstock.

"We sent most of a light infantry division, and a Ranger battalion"

Yes thats token. I am not bersmiching any of the efforts the soldiers made or that some died in the line of duty, it wasnt their choice or decision to go there.

"You have obviously never lost a good friend or family member in one of these "token efforts"

Nope, and hope I never have to.

"It's people like you who convince me that we should not deploy troops to any of these toejamholes"

Never intended to convince you, but im glad I did.

"Its funny how the nation that doese the most for this world (protection/financal aid etc..) "

Umm. yeah right. Please excuse me, i cant stop laughing. Your protection only benefits you, financial aid only benefits you.

Every nation acts in its own self interest, its not a criticism against the US, or any nation, its a fact. If you US folks take it personally, perhaps thinking that the "just cause" or "moral grounds" that your media feeds you is true, then thats your problem.

In my opinion, a true "moral" effort on any conflict, say, the Gulf War, wouldve ended with the removal of the REAL problem, Hussein, from the throne. But guess what? Oil fields liberated, great international reputation achieved, new toys tested in combat, no need to help the citizens of Iraq.. right? The effort only went so far. As far as it was convenient....and profitable.

It doesnt matter that that man has used chemical and possibly biological weapons against the kurds, and it saddens me to hear that you raub was exposed to that stuff   , or that he has the potential of a nuclear arsenal and quite probably wont have a problem using it, he was left on the throne, and he still continues to commit crime after crime on his own people. But Kuwait is liberated, and only the Kuwaiti people.. I mean, oil, count. To hell with the UN charter and Human Rights eh? Money is where the stuff is at.

That is how I see it. Sad reality.

[TheWobble]

   

Umm. yeah right. Please excuse me, i cant stop laughing. Your protection only benefits you, financial aid only benefits you.

then explain the lend lease act.

not to mention that the US pretty much IS the UN, yet we have no decision making power in what the UN does, all we have is VETO power which EVERY nation had, plus the US pays the VAST majority of the UN's bills.

so excuse me I cant stop laughing either

   

no need to help the citizens of Iraq.. right?

Removing saddam would have destabilized the entire reagon, making it even WORSE than it is now, we left saddam in power so that there would not be all that crazy crap that happens when a leader is ousted and rival factions fight to take control of the country.  By leaving Saddam in "power" we saved Iqar's citizens cost in lives and money of a civil war. Iraq definatly needs a revolution of sorts, but nobody should push them into one.



[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Dinger]

Point of information:
the Baaht(sp?) party is Sunni.
The Shi'ites are considered an oppressed minority in Iraq.
(Deny me if you dare.  Last year I had an atheist Iraqi Shi'ite housemate, and had to endure a couple of serious discussions with Sunnis concerning the true heir of the Prophet)
---
A DOE statistic that came out at the time of the Gulf War, showed that Iraq possessed 40% of the world's known oil reserves; Kuwait possessed 40% as well (gee, I wonder why decolonialization made them separate countries).
If you think economics had nothing to do with the Gulf War, I ask you to think again.  It is not in the interest of the US or Europe, nor of OPEC that one country obtain an effective monopoly of the world oil reserves. No first-world or oil-producing country in the world would want to see that happen.

[Tac]

"then explain the lend lease act."

Easy.

1)Germany overruning Europe.
2)US quite unprepared and unwilling to enter the war at that point.
3)In return for old destroyers and other old stuff the US gets strategically located bases all around the world from the UK. (a DAMN good deal if you ask me.. more like stealing someone's wallet when you've seen that someone beaten into the ground by someone else). I think it was for 99 years those bases were leased? Or was it 50? dont remember well...
4)US gets advisors from the UK on how to prepare industry for mass production of war material. A significat step and help, especially to a nation that was clearly (and the president knew it) going to get involved in the conflict soon OR become the single supplier of weapons and goodies.
5)The material sent to britain was "leased", and the UK had to pay for it after the war.

In essence, an amazing bussiness deal sealed when the UK was in no position whatsoever to deny any help they could get.

"not to mention that the US pretty much IS the UN, yet we have no decision making power in what the UN does, all we have is VETO power which EVERY nation had, plus the US pays the VAST majority of the UN's bills."

Which is why the UN was a joke, is a joke and will always be a joke. If a small, impoverished african nation vetoed a UN action, they would be ignored. If the big powers veto, those are the only ones that count. Why? Ignoring  a Veto from, say, China or Russia or Britain would surely bring along trade and economic sanctions or problems.Its all a power game buddy.

"Removing saddam would have destabilized the entire reagon, making it even WORSE than it is now, we left saddam in power so that there would not be all that crazy crap that happens when a leader is ousted and rival factions fight to take control of the country. By leaving Saddam in "power" we saved Iqar's citizens cost in lives and money of a civil war. Iraq definatly needs a revolution of sorts, but nobody should push them into one"

Remove saddam, UN forces occupy until its politically/socially stable, then leave. At least, thats what the UN charter says it should be done (except for removing Saddam, the rest is in the charter). Iraq wont have a revolution of any sorts until Saddam loses his military..and that wont happen for a looong time. And when the revolution does come, it will be much, much, much bloodier than if the UN forces had done it for them. The Yugoslav conflict is proof enough of that.

But hey, to do that means a LOT of money. Better keep on pressing Saddam, leaving Kuwait scared and dependant on US/Britain/Superpower oil-dependant countries for their survival... in the long run its good for bussiness, and screw the people.

'It is not in the interest of the US or Europe, nor of OPEC that one country obtain an effective monopoly of the world oil reserves. No first-world or oil-producing country in the world would want to see that happen."

EXACTLY. What would you think would have happened if Iraq completely dominated more than half of the world's oil? Can you say "Anthrax Cocktail"? Not to mention they would simply deny or severely overprice the oil to those nations they didnt like (aka, US, Britain, France... and all other nations that support Israel) and in turn become THE Superpower. It scares me toejamless to think how the world would be if that happened, it would be like the world of Orwell's 1984... Big Saddam is Watching You... Ignorance is Strength... Rednecks shall rule the world...

and the meek will have to ride bycicles, 'cause they sure as hell aint getting no gas.

[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 02-18-2001).]

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Tac:



In my opinion, a true "moral" effort on any conflict, say, the Gulf War, wouldve ended with the removal of the REAL problem, Hussein, from the throne. But guess what? Oil fields liberated, great international reputation achieved, new toys tested in combat, no need to help the citizens of Iraq.. right? The effort only went so far. As far as it was convenient....and profitable.

The war ended because we were killing Iraqis wholesale. The pretty pictures everyone was sitting at home watching on CNN weren't very pretty firsthand. In order for the coalition to advance to Baghdad, thousands more Iraqi soldiers would have lost their lives. The war was no longer a war, it was a turkey shoot by the 3rd day.
So, would it have been moral to kill thousands more and continue to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands even though all the objectives had been accomplished?

[Dowding]

Raubvogel - you didn't come back on any of my points. I was interested to hear what you thought. FYI, I'd like two things to happen in and around Iraq:

1) Lift the humanitarian aid embargo (or at least for the US to stop prosecuting people who want to take medical aid into Iraqi hospitals)

- I doubt this will happen, America/UK would have to lose some face

2) Protect the Kurds both in Iraq and Turkey

- never going to happen

Like Tac points out, the bottom line is each country will never rise above its own self-interest. But when our politicians shame-facedly lie about the reasons for their actions, or lean on some vacuous moral argument - then I get annoyed.

 

The war ended because we were killing Iraqis wholesale. The pretty pictures everyone was sitting at home watching on CNN weren't very pretty firsthand. In order for the coalition to advance to Baghdad, thousands more Iraqi soldiers would have lost their lives. The war was no longer a war, it was a turkey shoot by the 3rd day.

So which is it? 4th largest army in the world (suggesting some sort of superiority) or poorly trained, badly led collection of people who really did not want to fight? You can't have it both ways.

And if thousands of Iraqis were going to die, how come (in the final days of the war they were surrendering in their hundreds? Why couldn't this have continued all the way to Baghdad?

The truth is that Bush could not afford for the operation to go tits up on him if he committed further. I'm not sure if the same went for the rest of the coalition forces.

[pzvg]

Ok, to put it back to basics, What country with the 35th largest army in the world, most of the troops of which had absolutely NO training, inflicted large numbers of losses upon American forces that tried to fight them while being restrained in the interest of the "world view"?
Answer, North Viet Nam.
Everytime we go for the measured response, we end up with the "military haters social club" telling us we're being too harsh, guess it's ok to kill us handsomehunkes in uniform, after all, we like being killed, it's why we signed up, right?
As for us getting involved because of self-interest, yeah, your point?
Think the Roman Empire brought you Brits indoor plumbing for the hell of it?
Face a fact that you liberal types have been ducking since the end of the Second World War, If America was in fact the great facist imperialist power you've always claimed, considering the size and technical ability of our military, and the industrial infrastructure behind it, and throw one of the world's largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, IF we were what you claim, you'de be saluting our flag,
Or lying beneath yours.
Remember that the next time you want to accuse America of wanting to run the world.

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[Tac]

Pzvg, I dont see anyone saying the US rules the world. We're discussing a different matter here.

"guess it's ok to kill us handsomehunkes in uniform, after all, we like being killed, it's why we signed up, right?"

ROFL, that has become my favourite quote to date  

What dowding said.While it doesnt sound "morally correct", continuing the advance until Iraq was occupied and Saddam disposed of would have been a heck of a lot better.

Saddam is still in power, his military is beeing rebuilt, his chemical weapons replenished (no UN personnel allowed to inspect anymore..remember?), thousands of kurds may die in the near future because of them, heavens knows how many people die in Iraq because of Saddam or his military today.

But the whole thing is not about lives, its about money and interests.

The saddest part of this is that the U.N. was supposed to have its own military forces and act as a world cop/government, but again, the self-interesest of nations did not allow that.. and we are stuck in the same cycle of stupidity and selfishness again.
 

[Dowding]

 

Face a fact that you liberal types have been ducking since the end of the Second World War, If America was in fact the great facist imperialist power you've always claimed, considering the size and technical ability of our military, and the industrial infrastructure behind it, and throw one of the world's largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, IF we were what you claim, you'de be saluting our flag,

Exactly where does this come from? Have I ever claimed any of the above, or supported anyone who has? Is this even relevant to the discussion in hand?

The fact is that like many people on this board, you seem to project whatever you  dislike onto people you practically know nothing about.

"You liberal types..." How very unimaginative.

Tac - I only hope the UN doesn't go the way of the League of Nations. That really did end with a bang.


[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-18-2001).]

[TheWobble]

 

The fact is that like many people on this board, you seem to project whatever you dislike onto people you practically know nothing about.

[/b]

Fancy hearing that from you.

You dont live in the US, or Iraq and know none of iraq's people personally, and not many Americans personally, yet look at what your typing.




[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-18-2001).]

[Dowding]

Oh come on Wobble, are you now suggesting some kind isolationist leaning to the O-club? How far do you want to take this? Perhaps because you live in Texas, you are not allowed to discuss anything concerning the outside of Texas?

Let's give up discusing Iraq altogether, since none of us live there!!! Truly brilliant.

But lets keep our fly-boys risking their lives over there without a public discussion - I'm sure they'd love to know they were being completely ignored and forgotten.

[LJK Raubvogel]

Dowding, like I told Tac in another post; its folks like you that convince me that we should not deploy troops anywhere. You're the same type who protested at the beginning of World War 2 because the US wasn't getting involved. Now we get involved too much? I'm sure if the conflicts involved your country you would have no problem with help from the US. I guess the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" line applies here.

No worries, I've seen the faces of the people we have helped in deployments, and I know that most of them appreciated what we did. Someone sitting in the comfort of their home criticizing it doesn't worry me, I'll still do my job as ordered.