Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on February 16, 2001, 04:16:00 PM
-
Maybe this is the right forum? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
<cynic mode on>
It has been plausibly argued that the maintenance of sanctions, by reducing the majority of Iraqis to destitution, helps Saddam keep his grip on power. So why are the US and Britain refusing to lift sanctions by nit-picking about Saddam's compliance with their conditions and even adding new ones? Here are a couple of clues.
(1) The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments are making vast profits from oil in a market from which Iraq has been excluded, and are applying pressure on the US and Britain to keep things that way. (Saudi Arabian oil profits have doubled since the war to $50bn a year.)
(2) The US and British governments have arranged deals with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which will result in vast profits for construction companies, oil companies, and arms manufacturers in the US and Britain.
These 'easy win' wars are fanatastic for the economy. Here's a sure way to turn a profit:
1) Pick a hotspot
2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)
3) Feign humanitarian concern to generate an air of moral superiority
4) Focus on the plight of an oppressed minority (they are easy to find and the stories make great copy)
5) Get your media whipped into a frenzy; you know things are about cooked when the region is never off the airwaves/frontpages for about 2 weeks
6) Try to get UN approval (not completely necessary, but it is nice to have)
7) Bomb the toejam out of their infrastructure; picking the targets is easy, since the really pricey ones also make sound military objectives (oil refining, heavy industry and power generation)
8) Minimise allied casualties; this is a big pitfall, so be very careful with your deployments; only deploy ground forces when you know there will be little resistance. Use as much air power as possible, however ineffective.
9) After the hostilities have ended, get your construction companies in there as quick as you can! Time is quite definetly money!
10) Persuade the neighbouring countries that the threat has not completely dissipated, and that the only thing that will stop a reoccurance is if they buy your new line in guns/helicopters/planes/ships.
11) Sell! Sell! Sell!
Forget the IT industry, invest in the reconstruction/rearmament industries as soon as you feel that something is 'cooking'. You simply cannot lose.
<cynical mode off>
-
and your point is...?
-
It is in our (US & Brits) interests to preserve Saddam Hussein as a ruler of Iraq in order to keep stability in the middle east.
Saddam Hussein heads a secular government and is based on a minority (%20 Shi'ite?). The majority of the population have the same faith that Iranian population and quite a few of them are fundamentalists. If Saddam regime topples, it is very likely that Iraq will turn from a balance to Iran into a satellite of a fundamental Iran. Combine population resourses and fundamental ideology of one with technological level of the other and you have a much hotter situation.
It is much better to deal with secular, smart and realistic leader like Saddam Hussein then Iranian mullahs.
Also Iraqi Kurds will use the opportunity to form their own state along with those living in Turkey (our faithfull NATO ally and friend - the only muslim one at that), Iran and part of the former Soviet Union. That will probably start another war/terror campaign worse then 50 year israeli conflict and destabilise the region even further.
At the same time we do not want Hussein too powerfull to be really dangerous. So by bombing him we reduce risk to ourselves and help his regime. He has many enemies among arabs/muslims who also hate us. While he is seen to be fighting us, they cannot move against him because their population will not support them.
Of course Hussein knows it all and is very carefull to keep tensions high but not to go too far.
As for Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments are making vast profits from oil, we are their main buyer. If we wanted to insure their profits (whatever for?) we could just pay them more. The oil production is artificially limited by OPEC countries. They could have easily have increased production if they wanted. Just 2 years ago oil was less then $10 per barrel and Saudies were losing money by the trillion. By that time we were "nit-picking about Saddam's compliance" for eight years, so your statement is not supported by historical data.
What pressure could Saudis and Kwaitis exert on us to cause oil prices rise? Not allow us to protect them? Threaten to sell us cheaper oil? Threaten to raise Oil prices by themselves? Why pressure us then?
Also, US media has definitely not been "whipped into a frenzy over Iraq" for the last few months.
miko
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
These 'easy win' wars are fanatastic for the economy. Here's a sure way to turn a profit:
1) Pick a hotspot
2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)
3) Feign humanitarian concern to generate an air of moral superiority
>
While your whole post was a load of crap, as a veteran of your 'easy war' I found this part most troubling.
1) We didn't pick the hotspot.
2) Not well-armed or numerous? Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world, and even at the peak of the coalition deployment, his forces still outnumbered ours. Oh yeah, they had a couple of tanks too.
3)I guess all the dead Kuwaitis hanging from street lights was just a clever ploy? And the letter I got from the Department of Defense a few weeks ago confirming I was exposed to chemical agents was just a party gag?
I don't think anything pisses me off more than people trivializing a war. There's really nothing humourous about it.
-
Yup, I have a brother who is Special Forces, camped 50 mile outside Bagdhad in the last war. It isn't a joke to me, either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
we would not have this problem if only all the nations accepted socialism.
No borders, no nations, no classes, no rich, no poor and need for oil.
Right Dowding?
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 02-16-2001).]
-
Dowding, that is EXACTLY what is happenening. No nation EVER has done or will do anything because of moral grounds. Not even Canada (sorry canucks!).
Anyone that believes that the UN intervened in the middle east because of moral reasons must take a look at somalia and the yugoslavian conflicts... I dont see the same "humanitarian" efforts.
Rotten politics and self interests. The foundations of civilization (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Originally posted by Tac:
Anyone that believes that the UN intervened in the middle east because of moral reasons must take a look at somalia and the yugoslavian conflicts... I dont see the same "humanitarian" efforts.
Rotten politics and self interests. The foundations of civilization (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
We didn't try to help Somalia with its humanitarian problems? What? Tell that to the families of the 18 U.S. servicemen who lost their lives on a hot Mogadishu street one October day. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif) You people have a lot of nerve.
-
Hm, well, compared to what we Europeans) have done in the past, we've definitely mellowed out a lot.
We've colonized and opressed in the name of profit. We started a war with China so we could sell opium to its population and turn them into addicts.
We've definitely gotten more politically correct.
Still, it is a fine line to see when something is acting in justified self interest, and when something is done for a profit.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"
-
Dowding your post was spot on!
The media is extremely important in this type of operation. The major news services in the US are already little more than "corporate disinformation delivery devices" which makes it that much easier to pull off.
Americans rant, rave and salivate when images of Saddam are flashed on the Nightly News. They then calm down and make cooing noises when the image changes to Homer Simpson. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Maybe this is the right forum?
<cynic mode on>
It has been plausibly argued that the maintenance of sanctions, by reducing the majority of Iraqis to destitution, helps Saddam keep his grip on power. So why are the US and Britain refusing to lift sanctions by nit-picking about Saddam's compliance with their conditions and even adding new ones? Here are a couple of clues.
(1) The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments are making vast profits from oil in a market from which Iraq has been excluded, and are applying pressure on the US and Britain to keep things that way. (Saudi Arabian oil profits have doubled since the war to $50bn a year.)
(2) The US and British governments have arranged deals with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which will result in vast profits for construction companies, oil companies, and arms manufacturers in the US and Britain.
These 'easy win' wars are fanatastic for the economy. Here's a sure way to turn a profit:
1) Pick a hotspot
2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)
3) Feign humanitarian concern to generate an air of moral superiority
4) Focus on the plight of an oppressed minority (they are easy to find and the stories make great copy)
5) Get your media whipped into a frenzy; you know things are about cooked when the region is never off the airwaves/frontpages for about 2 weeks
6) Try to get UN approval (not completely necessary, but it is nice to have)
7) Bomb the toejam out of their infrastructure; picking the targets is easy, since the really pricey ones also make sound military objectives (oil refining, heavy industry and power generation)
8) Minimise allied casualties; this is a big pitfall, so be very careful with your deployments; only deploy ground forces when you know there will be little resistance. Use as much air power as possible, however ineffective.
9) After the hostilities have ended, get your construction companies in there as quick as you can! Time is quite definetly money!
10) Persuade the neighbouring countries that the threat has not completely dissipated, and that the only thing that will stop a reoccurance is if they buy your new line in guns/helicopters/planes/ships.
11) Sell! Sell! Sell!
Forget the IT industry, invest in the reconstruction/rearmament industries as soon as you feel that something is 'cooking'. You simply cannot lose.
<cynical mode off>
Truely pathetic,
you are more dilluded than the people of Iraq who believe that they wont the gulf war.
2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)
4th largest in the world, most complete idiots like yourself however, which became apparent as the ground war began.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-17-2001).]
-
Not to argue the right or wrong of the no-fly zones but:
Dowding you ARE aware that both the British and US forces flying and enforcing the no-fly zones get shot at quite routinely, correct? This has been going on for the entire time since the zones were established. It's certainly a weekly and sometimes much more frequent event.
You don't expect an occasional "slap upside the head" when these incidents increase to an intolerable level?
-
"We didn't try to help Somalia with its humanitarian problems? What? Tell that to the families of the 18 U.S. servicemen who lost their lives on a hot Mogadishu street one October day. You people have a lot of nerve"
Raub, my point was that if Somalia had huge oil reserves, or anything of material interest to the US (and UN) you would have seen a *serious* effort. The troops sent to somalia were nothing but tokens. You think that if Kuwait produced Papayas instead of oil, would the response has been the same? It aint nerve, its the sad truth.
-
Toad:
Firstly, let me say that I have no problem with the no-fly zones, or this latest wave of raids. It is as clear as day that Saddam was upping the ante in the area, and if OUR pilots are in danger, then they must respond.
In theory the no-fly zones are a great idea, but have several crucial flaws:
1) They are not UN sanctioned
- a problem, but I would doubt China or Russia to agree to this kind of action anyway, regardless of the circumstances
2) The Turks routinely attack the Kurds in the north with warplanes.
- and for a bonus point, the action taken against the Turks is?
Sweet FA. We welcome them with open arms into NATO
Hypocrisy with a touch of political expediency; it looks good for us Westerners to have such a faithful, and above all, Islamic ally.
If you want to enforce the no-fly zones for humanitarian reasons, then do the same with Turkey.
I guess all the dead Kuwaitis hanging from street lights was just a clever ploy?
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.
And the letter I got from the Department of Defense a few weeks ago confirming I was exposed to chemical agents was just a party gag?
That's very sad. It was the Germans who planted the seeds of the Iraqi chemical weapons industry. You know, back when we were all good friends - the US, UK and Iraq all united against the common enemy of communist backed Islamic fundamentalism. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious.
I don't think anything pisses me off more than people trivializing a war. There's really nothing humourous about it.
Cold irony was basis of my post, not humour. I find the situation abominable. We send our armed forces to their deaths, supporting questionable (not to mention near impossible) objectives.
Meanwhile the innocents in all this, the very people we are trying to help, suffer even more. Take this quote from MAIC (Medical Aid for Iraqi Children):
"The continuation of sanction imposed on Iraq since 1991 has had a staggering effect on the health of children. International health and aid organisations, as well as UN agencies' figures estimate that around 6000 children are dying every month. A total of 570,000 have died from malnutrition and disease between 1990 and 1996. Since then this figure is estimated to have reached over 1 million. Since then, this figure is estimated to have reached 1.5 million."
Are our pilots risking their lives to apparently protect a small minority (which in the north is being bombed to buggery every week), while the majority suffer even more?
Am I the only one that thinks this is completely wrong? This disastrous medical aid embargo gives Saddam all the ammo he needs to brainwash his people into believing the outside world is completely against the Iraqi people. He steals the money from oil sales and then blames shortages on the embargoes and the outside world generally.
In twenty years time we will start to see the results of the isolationism we have inadvertedly fostered. Iraqi children, brought up to hate the West will be all too willing to sacrifice themselves for 'the good of Iraq' in the face of the 'infidel'. And the people of Lockerbie and Pan Am Flight 103 know what that means all too well.
TheWaffle - you'll have to do better than that. Come up with an argument next time, and while we are at it, comparing me to an Iraqi soldier isn't very smart. I'm also very surprised you haven't thrown a wobbly yet (it's been a couple of days since the last one).
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-17-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Tac:
[B
Raub, my point was that if Somalia had huge oil reserves, or anything of material interest to the US (and UN) you would have seen a *serious* effort. The troops sent to somalia were nothing but tokens. You think that if Kuwait produced Papayas instead of oil, would the response has been the same? It aint nerve, its the sad truth.
[/B]
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
There is an age-old saying that applies here:
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
AKDejaVu
-
"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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) , 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.
-
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).]
-
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.
-
"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).]
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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.
-
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).]
-
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).]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
"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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
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...
-
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"
-
Yes Lynx, but you miss the point (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). 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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Heh Toad, you wanted to go in the first place.
Now, clean up your room before you leave (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
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!
-
Santa what's with the brown-nosing? You hoping to get seconded to the Gentlemen's club that is the US? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
j/k
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) 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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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).]
-
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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
55 years is more than enough.
Your turn.
-
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"
-
pzvg - this is the O-club is it not? I was under the impression it was where things not pertaining to AH or flight sims are discussed.
If this thread is irrelevant to flight sims then so are about 99.99% of topics in this forum. So why are you here?
No one is forcing you to read this thread or post in it. If you don't want to, then don't. Simple as that.
To everyone else, there's some good points there. I'm at work now (and shouldn't be online right now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), so I'll get back to you tonight hopefully.
Dingy - something stuck in my mind the other night. A former RAF Tornado pilot who was shot down in 1990 was being interviewed (I'll dig out some quotes tonight) - he was commenting on the exasperation of RAF crews, who were flying over Northern Iraq to stop air raids on the Kurds, but were seeing Turkish planes taking off and bombing those same people (civilians not PKK guerrilas).
See ya later.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Dingy - something stuck in my mind the other night. A former RAF Tornado pilot who was shot down in 1990 was being interviewed (I'll dig out some quotes tonight) - he was commenting on the exasperation of RAF crews, who were flying over Northern Iraq to stop air raids on the Kurds, but were seeing Turkish planes taking off and bombing those same people (civilians not PKK guerrilas).
Dunno Dowding. As far as I know, the only beef the Turks had with the Kurds were the PKK rebels and with good reason. They were about as active as the Sein Fein faction in Ireland. Quite a belligerant group...I can recall a number of Kurdish rebellions at various embassys in Greece and Berlin back in the early to mid 90s. These rebellions were a result of the capture of Ocalla.
The Kurdish situation is a very tricky one since the PKK are similar to the Viet Cong back in the 70s. In order to root them out, you had to wade through large groups of innocents since they comingled with the general populace.
-Ding