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

[Toad]

Raub, it's long past time for all our troops to come home. No more deployments, either.

Let the world see what it's like without us, for all our many faults.

I think we endured enough of their disdain to last for four or five decades...we can take a break now and see how well they manage things by themselves.

The money we save can be used to pay for improvements in health care, education, care for our elderly and for bringing our military forces up to a decent, normal standard of living for all ranks.

We'd still have plenty left over to modernize the forces too!

[Tac]

"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"

Raub, I dont know what idea you got in your mind. Im saying that nothing any Gulf-War involved nation did to help kuwait was done out of the bottom of their hearts. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -get it?

Toad, by doing that (if its ever done which I highly doubt it) the US (or France, or UK, add any global power here) would lose its worldwide influence, which in turn is very bad for bussiness. In this case, the USA has the most to lose from that, it being the only remaining superpower.

Its all a power game, fueled by economics. Weapons, soldiers, infrastructure, influence, pressure, dependance... its all part of the equation... nothing else.

"I'm sure if the conflicts involved your country you would have no problem with help from the US"

Sure I wouldnt mind. I know that we would have to pay a boatload of money in trading agreements and other benefits in exchange for the help (well, that is, if my country was worth something). We'd also invite France and the brits, see which UN power is willing to spend military resources in return for a solution at the lowest cost for us. After the conflict the government would of course, need to re-arm itself and rebuild... the World Bank and (insert global power that "helped" here) would be more than happy to offer its own industry and thus, gain a foothold on the local market which in the long term is highly profitable AND allows even more influence to be applied to the "helped" nation in the future.Its just bussiness.

You see the silver lining, I see the gray hairs.

[StSanta]

Toad, the Us was largely an isolationist state after WWI. After WWII, the US actively deployed and sought participation, often using threats, in the policy of Containment of the communist disease.

Now, the cold war is over. but, you have to admit that to at least asome extent, the US itself, in protecting its own interests against communism, set it up the way it is.

Some would argue that the US have some responsibilities that comes with the situation created, some would say they don't.

But I don't think we can selectively just look at WWI and WWII and forgetting about the policies post WWII.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!

[Dowding]

Jesus Raubvogel, Toad - is it possible for you to avoid taking a US-centric view with anything?

My post was not aimed at the US solely - the UK has made a fortune selling arms to Saudi. Do you know how much British construction companies are making in Kosovo or Bosnia or, in a very short amount of time, Serbia?

European governments are breaking their balls to get their companies into the Balkan warzones faster than their neighbours.

Looking at the larger picture do you also know how much money British arms manufacturers made in the real Gulf War (i.e. Iran-Iraq war)? How about all the arms sales to China (torture devices mainly - electric shock batons etc)?

This issue relates to the WHOLE of the Western world, not just the US.

[Yeager]

Lets bring the scale down some, say from entire societies to single human beings.

We are each and every one of us a micro contributer to the condition of the entire human race.  SInce all humans are fundamentaly the same, we are all guilty of living.  

I say eliminate ALL humans from the earth, with the exception of me and a few cute gals.

That would solve everyones problems!

Yeager

[-lynx-]

 

lol! As if we were defending a democratic state!!!! You do know that Kuwait has a downright horrific human rights record don't you? They routinely torture their own people for god's sake, but because we don't see the pictures on CNN, everything is a-ok.

Dowding that's a crappy argument - you obviously can't appreciate the difference between what you perceive to be "human rights" and what, say, Kuwaities think on the subject. You do know that Kuwait is a sovereign state with their own laws/rules/whatevers, don't you? If you happen to disagree with any of those - they can point out that you, say, drive on the wrong side of the road .

 

Raub, it's long past time for all our troops to come home. No more deployments, either.

Toad, you do understand that in this case you won't need as big an army, don't you? Thousands of soldiers will be let go. Defense spending to follow suit. Thousands of workers laid off. It's the economy. Be careful with what you preach for.

A few years ago Britain was waiting for the MOD's decision to choose the main battle tank for the 21st century. It could have been Abrams or Leopard II but they went for the British built Challenger 2. 40,000 British jobs were saved. Nobody really cared which tank was to be selected. No-one with even half a brain is expecting them to be used for the purpose they were designed for anyway. It was where it was to be built...

[pzvg]

whatever I dislike? good one, I don't really dislike people with the "why can't we all get along" viewpoint, But I am a realist, we can't get along, America created a lot of the mess it was in, but for some reason, nobody else seems willing to get us out of it.So we do things ourselves, for our interests.
Just as your country (all of you not anyone specifically) does.
That's why we have countries, Yeah the US helped put Sadsack (Saddam) in power, and the brits helped create the Palestinian problem, even the morally upright Swedes sell weapons to cash customers, way it goes.
But, should we end our involvement in Iraq?
Let's see, US/UK pulls out, Sadsack announces he's run us off, reconsolidates his power, tensions with Iran have dropped due to all the crazy mullahs dying off, Iraqi influence gains power, using his past invasion as a stick, Sadsack nows offers OPEC a carrot, consolidation into a power base that can control the world economy, backed up by Iraqi military might, with a possible bonus of turning Israel into radioactive glass.
Far-fetched? not really, for whatever reasons we got involved over there, now we have some extremely good reasons to stay.
And let's not stop with us in the West, How many arms sales does the PRC broker? Think Iran got those Silkworm missiles at Walmart?
Nothing is as cut and dried as people would prefer, but to return to the salient point of the argument, we bombed Iraqi C3I complexes in response to them engaging our aircraft, (For those of you not familiar, switching a fire-control radar from "search" to "track" is considered engaging by every airforce in the world) Saddam will parade his injured civilians (even odds as to wether we did it or he ordered it) play to the media, which panders to attention grabbing nowadays instead of news reporting,
It goes on, Should we have continued on to Baghdad during Desert Storm? probably, but the same UN folks like to hold up as the shield against the darkness did not authorize the removal of Saddam from power.
In a nutshell, what we have in the Gulf is a sad commentary on modern history, with no likely end in sight.
Now is that a fair unbiased representation?
Btw, I'm half-German on my Mom's side, America-centric? first laugh I've had all day.

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

[Dowding]

Yes Lynx, but you miss the point  . If you go back to the reasons that were given (and are still being given) for the Gulf War, one of them was to stop the brutality being imposed by the Iraqi occupiers.

This IS the crappy argument, because the Kuwaiti authority is similarly as brutal to its own people (just hope you're never interrogated in a Kuwaiti police station).

The dishonesty in hiding behind flimsy moral arguments is what I despise. And it's something the West has been very good at when dealing with the Middle East in general.

What are your thoughts on basic human rights, Lynx? Are there such things in your mind? If we are to leave Kuwait alone and let it govern itself, should we be dealing with them at all by selling arms etc?

pzvg - please read the posts I have made in this thread - you'll find we agree more than we disagree, for instance:

1) We shouldn't end our involvement with Iraq. We should take responsibility for our past actions and try to SOLVE the problem, instead of EXPLOITING it.

I've already mentioned about the US/UK losing face if we pulled out.

2) I've also stated that the latest air-strikes SHOULD have occured. Our forces must be protected, it is as simple as that.

The question is whether they should be there, hoping to protect the Kurds from the Iraqis, while Turkey (a NATO member, for god's sake) bombs them to hell weekly.

If the RAF and USAF is helping the Marsh Arabs and Kurds (MINORITES both) by keeping the Iraqi air force grounded, then the embargo is supplying Saddam with the means to punish the MAJORITY by funneling the money into his personal palace fund.

Remove the embargo and Saddam will have to provide an improvement in the situation - he has lost the reason he was using to fuel his anti-West propaganda in the eyes of his people.

[Toad]

It will always be cheaper to maintain forces at home than overseas.

There will be an inevitable "downsizing" of our military in any event. It's going on right now. I expect the new "defense review" to continue the trend. We can control the pace of that operation, however.

Simply using the money we save by basing the presently sized US military establishment at home we can reinvigorate this economy.

Additionaly, the multi-billions of dollars that our deployed troops inject daily into overseas economies for everyday expenses and entertainment would now go to US businesses. That will also help our economy.

Bring 'em home. Now.  

Never go where you are not wanted.  

[StSanta]

Heh Toad, you wanted to go in the first place.

Now, clean up your room before you leave  .

I.e, do it in a responsible manner. And I have a feeling the US will do just this.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!

[Dowding]

Santa what's with the brown-nosing? You hoping to get seconded to the Gentlemen's club that is the US?  

j/k

[Dingy]

   

Originally posted by Dowding:

European governments are breaking their balls to get their companies into the Balkan warzones faster than their neighbours.

Looking at the larger picture do you also know how much money British arms manufacturers made in the real Gulf War (i.e. Iran-Iraq war)? How about all the arms sales to China (torture devices mainly - electric shock batons etc)?

This issue relates to the WHOLE of the Western world, not just the US.

OK I've got to jump in here with my typical well rounded and well informed viewpoint    

First of all, dont think that its of purely US/Western European benfit to participate in Mid-East foreign policy.  The former Soviet Union (now primarily Russia) and China have also been flexing their foreign policy muscle in the Mid-East for economic reasons as well.

First thing I think many seem to ignore is that Iraqi war materiels are primarily Soviet/Russian made.  Look at all the Migs that were destroyed in their bunkers or were caught fleeing to Iran for immunity during the gulf war.  Look at all the T-72 and T-62 battle tanks which were destroyed in the Iraqi desert as they waited for the eventual attack or were caught on highways retreating from Kuwait.  Look at the Scud missiles which are variants of Chinese made ballistic missiles sold to Iraq for targeting at Isreal and Allied forces during the war.  

Now Dowding, you comment on the embargos levied on the Iraqis by the UN (yes I agree its primarily US lead) but again you neglect a few key points.  First of all, did you know that 6 years ago they were loosened to allow Iraq to sell oil so they could buy food and medical supplies?  

Did you know that the embargo does allow Iraq to buy food and medical supplies yet Saddam feels its in his countrys best interest to spend a good portion of that money on additional arms for his country?  If you didnt know, hes rearming as we speak   hence one of the purposes of the strike last week.

Guess who those are supplied by....BING!!  You are correct, Russia and China...the same countries which OPPOSE UN SANCTIONS!    

So guess what....we're at an impasse.  We've loosened restrictions on Saddam to allow him to alleviate some of the suffering to his people yet he feels its NOT in his country's best interest to do so.  IF we give him free reign to do as he wishes sans UN sanctions, yes his people will benefit but his military regime will be rebuilt, again imbalancing the power in the mid-east.  At this point, sure US/Western allies will suffer some economic woes but there is still the risk of a power hungry militaristic leader who has no qualms of taking what he wishes through force.  Some Im sure mid-Easterners arent too fond of.

You all have made some great points, but I just think theres plenty you are not realizing.

-Ding


[This message has been edited by Dingy (edited 02-19-2001).]

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
This IS the crappy argument, because the Kuwaiti authority is similarly as brutal to its own people (just hope you're never interrogated in a Kuwaiti police station).

As is the Jordanian gov't or the Syrian Gov't or the Saudi Arabian government.  Any judicial system based on Islamic law is typically much more "brutal" by Western standards than what most of us are accustomed to with English "Common" law.

 

The dishonesty in hiding behind flimsy moral arguments is what I despise. And it's something the West has been very good at when dealing with the Middle East in general.

You may despise it but disinformation is a fundamental feature of ANY government.  The masses are told what their governments feel is in the countrys best interest.  We see that with any democracy, monarchy or oligarchy.  Hell the Iraqis think they won the war!  

 

What are your thoughts on basic human rights, Lynx? Are there such things in your mind? If we are to leave Kuwait alone and let it govern itself, should we be dealing with them at all by selling arms etc?

They are doing quite fine on their own and becomming quite rich due to western dependence on oil.  Kuwaitis are some of the best educated and wealthy in the world.

 

1) We shouldn't end our involvement with Iraq. We should take responsibility for our past actions and try to SOLVE the problem, instead of EXPLOITING it.

This is a UN matter.  The oil for food agreement that the UN brokered with Iraq has helped the people somewhat yet you still have Saddam attempting to circumvent the UN with illegitimate arms deals on the black market.  The people of Iraq wont CEASE to be troubled until they get a leader who truly cares for them.

 

2) I've also stated that the latest air-strikes SHOULD have occured. Our forces must be protected, it is as simple as that.

Agree there  

 

The question is whether they should be there, hoping to protect the Kurds from the Iraqis, while Turkey (a NATO member, for god's sake) bombs them to hell weekly.

Actually ever since Abdullah Ocallan (sp?) a Kurdish guerilla was captured, these attacks have GREATLT subsided.  The Kurds you are referring to are members of the Kurdish Working Party (PKK) which are known terrorists throughout the globe.  Check the web for them, you will find tons of terrorist actions fostered by this group.  

Just recently, Turkey has started allowing immigration of non-Ocalla aligned Kurds into the country.

 

Remove the embargo and Saddam will have to provide an improvement in the situation - he has lost the reason he was using to fuel his anti-West propaganda in the eyes of his people.

Absolutely untrue in my opinion.  Saddam has already shown that he cares little for his people and greatly for heavy arms.  He will rebuild his military before he helps his people if given the chance.  History speaks for itself.  Look back at the 8 year Iran/Iraq war.  Iraqi suffering predates the Gulf War...it came about as part of Iraqs emphasis on rebuilding its military after the Iran/Iraq war.

Just some alternative viewpoints and additional information which seems to be lacking in some persons views.

-Ding

[Toad]

Santa,


First, it is most certainly not OUR room.

Second, if they all suddenly came home tomorrow, the room would be far, far cleaner than it was when they arrived.

Last, in the not too distant future you folks are going to be looking very hard and in vain to find anyone here that wants to be involved in those never-ending problems.

I know my father had his plans suddenly and irreversibly changed by WW2. He didn't "want to go"; he went because he felt it was his duty, however. I never met very many US servicemen that "wanted to go" no matter what conflict they had participated in.

I think you are very much mistaken in this impression.

I hope this impression will be corrected in the very near future and for a very long time to come.  

55 years is more than enough.

Your turn.

[pzvg]

Sorry Dowding but you still pointing 180 out of true, The problem in Iraq, and the one with Turkey, is the UN,They made the rules, we're playing by those rules, now if you citizens of the world want to do something to end all the crap, Tell your governments to tell the UN to take the damn gloves off, Nobody ever resolved anything by going halfway, yet halfway seems to be the UN's maximum reach.
I would rather not be over there,or there,or there, Jee H Christos people, we have troops in nearly every corner of the globe, and it's not in the guise of "benevolent imperialism", We have Nukes, if we wished to intimidate other nations, we wouldn't have to leave home. I remember German skinheads spitting on me while I guarded the border against the Warsaw Pact, didn't make me feel particularly good about saving them from the Sovs, In fact I probably had more in common with that poor hapless Russian private on the other side of the wire,cold,hungry,and a hell of a long way from home.
Now, get of your soapbox, you're not contributing any solutions, merely trying to adopt a hypocritical "moral" stance by standing around saying "I would have done it better" put up or shut up, run for P.M. voice your ideas on BBC, not in a forum for flight simmers, where it has no effect except to get your cookies.

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