Savage Henry Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Aye and then we sanctioned the Iraqis for 10 years killing an estimated 1 million people. Bravo. Also, lets not forget who made Iraqs military so powerful. Those numbers are questionable, but it's a separate issue to the actual war in the Gulf. A definite issue, I agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) I'll ask again. If we did the job with the First Iraq War, why did we need the second? Did we get it wrong, do a bad job the first time or was the political decisions short term? If they did get it wrong, was it in not following through all the way into removing Saddam once their forces were smashed in Kuwait? edit: genuine question - will admit to not being all that clued up on early-90's politics in the Middle East (or today tbh, where it all seems to be a bit of a clusterfuck)... Edited October 3, 2015 by Thistle_do_nicely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Those numbers are questionable, but it's a separate issue to the actual war in the Gulf. A definite issue, I agree. It's all intertwined and is one of the reasons the region is such a clusterfuck today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It's all intertwined and is one of the reasons the region is such a clusterfuck today. A very, very minimal reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 A very, very minimal reason. Really ? People dying because of the West isn't in anyway related to increased extremism ?. I beg to differ. We've been sticking our noses in since the start of the twentieth century. Iraq is a great example. We build up their army then blow the shot out of them then we cripple them with sanctions for 10 years then blow the shit out of them again. I'm sure your average Iraqi who has lost half their family will be over the moon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Really ? People dying because of the West isn't in anyway related to increased extremism ?. I beg to differ. We've been sticking our noses in since the start of the twentieth century. Iraq is a great example. We build up their army then blow the shot out of them then we cripple them with sanctions for 10 years then blow the shit out of them again. I'm sure your average Iraqi who has lost half their family will be over the moon. That's just meaningless hyperbole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 That's just meaningless hyperbole. Yeah I know. Millions of civilians dead in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan in recent times but totally meaningless and absolutely no correlation to increased extremism whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I'll ask again. If we did the job with the First Iraq War, why did we need the second? Did we get it wrong, do a bad job the first time or was the political decisions short term? The definition of success isn't "no more war on that plot of land ever". The intervention in the First Gulf War was directed towards the removal of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces from Kuwait, their presence of which was an act of war and in violation of international law. The intervention removed Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Kuwait is no longer occupied. That constitutes success. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The definition of success isn't "no more war on that plot of land ever". The intervention in the First Gulf War was directed towards the removal of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces from Kuwait, their presence of which was an act of war and in violation of international law. The intervention removed Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Kuwait is no longer occupied. That constitutes success. The definition is as wide as the allies want to make it. I would also suggest that you polish up on your history as we didn't just remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait but kept on going into Iraq. The US also promised support to the Kurds in the north who then made moves to remove Saddam. The US then failed to provide any support to the Kurds resulting in brutal torture of these people. Millions were forced to flee the country as a result. Kind of puts your definition of success into perspective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The definition is as wide as the allies want to make it. I would also suggest that you polish up on your history as we didn't just remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait but kept on going into Iraq. The US also promised support to the Kurds in the north who then made moves to remove Saddam. The US then failed to provide any support to the Kurds resulting in brutal torture of these people. Millions were forced to flee the country as a result. Kind of puts your definition of success into perspective. You're failing to look at the alternative, which would have been the Kurds would have been tortured by Saddam regardless. Success is relative. It's not about making absolutely everything great. Not protecting the Kurds isn't a reason to say protecting the Kuwaitis wasn't a success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 You're failing to look at the alternative, which would have been the Kurds would have been tortured by Saddam regardless. Success is relative. It's not about making absolutely everything great. Not protecting the Kurds isn't a reason to say protecting the Kuwaitis wasn't a success. So it was a success to leave Saddam there to torture people so long as our friends are OK? I think I am starting to get an understanding of you logic and it should see you well if you do take up politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The definition is as wide as the allies want to make it. I would also suggest that you polish up on your history as we didn't just remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait but kept on going into Iraq. The US also promised support to the Kurds in the north who then made moves to remove Saddam. The US then failed to provide any support to the Kurds resulting in brutal torture of these people. Millions were forced to flee the country as a result. Kind of puts your definition of success into perspective. Hang on, so we did wrong by going briefly into Iraq in the process of evicting their forces from Kuwait, but again for not for going further into Iraq to protect the Kurds? By the way the people we really let down were the Shia in the south, the Kurds ended up getting protected and allowed to set up their own semi-autonomous enclave, it was the Shia who were massacred, in particular the Marsh Arabs. The worst massacres of the Kurds happened at the end of the Iran Iraq war when they were suspected of of aiding Iran. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 So it was a success to leave Saddam there to torture people so long as our friends are OK? I think I am starting to get an understanding of you logic and it should see you well if you do take up politics. No, in the same way as the fact that poverty still exists isn't a success, but the massive reduction in poverty that has happened in the last few decades has been a success. International relations and military action is the art of the possible. When you can't win every battle you pick your battles and you make sure you win those. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Hang on, so we did wrong by going briefly into Iraq in the process of evicting their forces from Kuwait, but again for not for going further into Iraq to protect the Kurds? By the way the people we really let down were the Shia in the south, the Kurds ended up getting protected and allowed to set up their own semi-autonomous enclave, it was the Shia who were massacred, in particular the Marsh Arabs. The worst massacres of the Kurds happened at the end of the Iran Iraq war when they were suspected of of aiding Iran. So you argument here is that the torture of the Kurds after the war was fine as they had it worse previously. In terms of the war, Ad Lib was asked where we had done a lot of good and he used the First Gulf War as an example. He then backed this up by stating it was a success as occupying Iraqi forces were removed from Kuwait. I just pointed out that we also occupied a sovereign territory but as we won the battle we get to write the history. My original point was that the fact we had a second invasion would lead any reasonable person to conclude that we didn't actually do the right thing the first time. The argument can also be made for the secongld one as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 No, in the same way as the fact that poverty still exists isn't a success, but the massive reduction in poverty that has happened in the last few decades has been a success. International relations and military action is the art of the possible. When you can't win every battle you pick your battles and you make sure you win those. Only a fool would compare poverty and war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 So you argument here is that the torture of the Kurds after the war was fine as they had it worse previously. In terms of the war, Ad Lib was asked where we had done a lot of good and he used the First Gulf War as an example. He then backed this up by stating it was a success as occupying Iraqi forces were removed from Kuwait. I just pointed out that we also occupied a sovereign territory but as we won the battle we get to write the history. My original point was that the fact we had a second invasion would lead any reasonable person to conclude that we didn't actually do the right thing the first time. The argument can also be made for the secongld one as well. We occupied sovereign territory in order to protect another sovereign territory whose sovereignty had been violated and to force Saddam to undertake not to send his tanks in again as soon as we left. This is not a comparable occupation in international law, fact, or morality, to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Only a fool would compare poverty and war. Except that wasn't what I was doing. I was using the analogy of poverty to show why your "but there's still war so it's not a success" claim is criminally stupid. We could do the same with disease. The fact that smallpox still exists doesn't mean that the vaccination efforts weren't successful. The fact that some bacteria have developed penicillin resistance isn't evidence that penicillin has been a failure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Ask Kuwait. Ask the Marsh Arabs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Ask the Marsh Arabs. Yeah, because life under Saddam Hussein before the First Gulf War was wonderful for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Erm, the US was absolutely duty bound to intervene. Morally, militarily, whichever grounds you choose. They were obligated. The peoples of Kuwait and Kurdistan absolutely were liberated from persecutive occupation by the actions of the West in the early 90s. Kurdistan? When were they liberated? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.