Antiochas III Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Yeah, because life under Saddam Hussein before the First Gulf War was wonderful for them. Ah so you are turning do good for the Middle East, to good of Kuwait. Got ye. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Kurdistan? When were they liberated? Is that a serious question or am I being wooshed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Ah so you are turning do good for the Middle East, to good of Kuwait. Got ye. No. Kuwait is part of the Middle East. The Western Intervention in Iraq and Kuwait in the First Gulf War did not cause a single massacre committed by Saddam Hussein's government. The non-liberation of parts of the Middle East we did not attempt to liberate does not mean that the liberation of Kuwait fails to qualify as a successful intervention with respect to the Middle East. It was a victory. A success. It wasn't a league title. It wasn't an 8-0 victory. But we won the game and 3 points were in the bag. That the Kurds lost to Saddam the following week is not evidence of failure unless you think the problem was we didn't injure his players enough. I don't think you seriously believe that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 No. Kuwait is part of the Middle East. The Western Intervention in Iraq and Kuwait in the First Gulf War did not cause a single massacre committed by Saddam Hussein's government. The non-liberation of parts of the Middle East we did not attempt to liberate does not mean that the liberation of Kuwait fails to qualify as a successful intervention with respect to the Middle East. It was a victory. A success. It wasn't a league title. It wasn't an 8-0 victory. But we won the game and 3 points were in the bag. That the Kurds lost to Saddam the following week is not evidence of failure unless you think the problem was we didn't injure his players enough. I don't think you seriously believe that. We (the west) backed Saddam. Everything subsequent to this, we must accept falls from that ill advised intervention. The US even supplied materials for his biological and chemical weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Are you aware of where Hussein got the weapons that allowed him to invade Kuwait in the first place? And if so, are you aware of why he was given those weapons? Mainly the Soviet Union and for cash. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 We (the west) backed Saddam. Everything subsequent to this, we must accept falls from that ill advised intervention. The US even supplied materials for his biological and chemical weapons. This argument is tantamount to saying: "Chamberlain appeased Hitler over Czechoslovakia so it was a bad decision to fight World War Two." Don't be self evidently stupid. You're better than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) This argument is tantamount to saying: "Chamberlain appeased Hitler over Czechoslovakia so it was a bad decision to fight World War Two." Don't be self evidently stupid. You're better than that. The evidently stupid thing here is you comparing appeasement and support. I would say that you are better than this but your recent postings suggest otherwise. The appeasement of Saddam was the Jeddah agreement, much like Hitler Saddam wasn't happy.I also don't recall the UK providing the gas for the concentration camps. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this or are you just going to ignore that part of the post? Edited October 4, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The evidently stupid thing here is you comparing appeasement and support. I would say that you are better than this but your recent postings suggest otherwise. The appeasement of Saddam was the Jeddah agreement, much like Hitler Saddam wasn't happy. I also don't recall the UK providing the gas for the concentration camps. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this or are you just going to ignore that part of the post? Are you suggesting that if we had supplied deadly gases to Hitler in, say 1935, we would have therefore been wrong to declare war on him in 1939? Have a word with yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Also only a child would conclude I was giving moral equivalence to appeasement and active support. The analogy was about whether the mere fact that your actions in the past enabled someone to become a brutal dictator has zero effect on the justification for going to war to remove them or to prevent aspects of their brutality at a later date. That we enabled Saddam doesn't mean he has some sort of legitimate expectation not to be removed by us. If anything the opposite is true. It is not inconsistent to say that our arming of Saddam and the Second Gulf war were bad, while also saying that repelling him from Kuwait was good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Are you suggesting that if we had supplied deadly gases to Hitler in, say 1935, we would have therefore been wrong to declare war on him in 1939? Have a word with yourself. Aye, that is exactly what I am saying. I was actually pointing out once again how frail your comparisons are. Also only a child would conclude I was giving moral equivalence to appeasement and active support. The analogy was about whether the mere fact that your actions in the past enabled someone to become a brutal dictator has zero effect on the justification for going to war to remove them or to prevent aspects of their brutality at a later date. That we enabled Saddam doesn't mean he has some sort of legitimate expectation not to be removed by us. If anything the opposite is true. It is not inconsistent to say that our arming of Saddam and the Second Gulf war were bad, while also saying that repelling him from Kuwait was good. No one mentioned moral equivalence. You used the two as a direct comparison. Edited October 4, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Just give up you clown. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Just give up you clown. Stunning contribution as always Strichener talking some sense here... betya you didn't even read it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Just give up you clown. This from someone that decides their politics by the dualling of the road network. Edited October 4, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Stunning contribution as always Strichener talking some sense here... betya you didn't even read it. I read it all for pages. He was beaten long ago and he keeps digging a hole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I read it all for pages. He was beaten long ago and he keeps digging a hole. Perhaps you could describe what this hole is. Are you denying that we supported Saddam, that the US provided ingredients for chemical or Biological weapons? Which part have I got wrong, or are you another that is happy to take the "West knows best" position even when history shows this is hardly ever the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I don't. Well this post will be rather embarrassing for you. Seriously considering voting SNP in Berwick in May after being let down again by the ConDems in terms of duelling the A1. The way both parties are trying to pass today off as a success is sickening. The Labour candidate is a bigger joker than those two and f**k voting UKIP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I'm not denying that at all. It's clear however that the first Gulf War was a success. It achieved its aim of removing Saddam from Kuwait. That's it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Well this post will be rather embarrassing for you.Deciding who to vote for in an individual election does not define my politics. I take a number of things into account before making my decision. In the end I voted Labour. I find it rather embarrassing that people like you need to be told what to think by a political party tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I'm not denying that at all. It's clear however that the first Gulf War was a success. It achieved its aim of removing Saddam from Kuwait. That's it. If you're sticking to those narrow parameters then yes, it was a success. If you want to widen the issue a little then things get more complex, and a lot less positive for the West. 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.