Did the UN fail?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You're forgetting the Polish Commandos who siezed several Iraqi oil platforms and I beleive botht the Danes and the Japanese contributed medical personnel; I also remember hearing the Spanish had forces in Kuwait 7 Qatar plus numerous coalition countries contributed navel vessals.

Sure that still means the bulk was carried by the U.S., U.K., and Australia but these was a remarkably wide spread allaince (not the most but still above average) and a very successful one. I'm thinking that some of you die hard America bashers are just to wrapped up in your bais to be able to give kudos for a job well done.

That 8 countries you list. 8 is not equal to 50+

[Master Zen]

BTW, I've said this twice and NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO ANSWER:

If Iraq had WMD in 1990, why didn't it use them then, either against Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?

Since they didn't use them, what makes you people think Iraq would have used them in the near future, threatening the very countries it threatened in 90/91?

I still find that argument that Saddam was planning to use his WMD to attack others totally unreasonable since he didn't do it when he had a much better chance of winning.

[gsmoove23]

Did Bush ever publish a list of the 50+ countries that contributed and what they contributed? I thought it was pretty funny that the admin considers Turkey part of the coalition. In the beginning of the war US news agencies were proclaiming that Turkey had allowed us to use their air space as if it was a great favour when what they didn't give us is far more telling.

I would love to see a list of those 50+ countries and what they gave, I would love more to see a list of what they didn't give. Supposedly Bush requested military support from Japan, nope sorry but how about a few medical personnel and a check.

[GePap]

50+? did they put out a new list after the one with 40 something names?

I loved how when the Prime Minster of the Solomon Island was asked why he supported the war in Iraq, since his state was on the list, he said he had no idea why the Solomon islands were on the list. Sounds just like the leader of slovenia.

Oh, and Spain had no troops in the area. aznar specifically stated he would not send Spanish troops to the war. Bulgaria and the Czechs sent some token forces, ussually specialist units.

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by GePap


At first, i was going to reply point by point, but you know what..lets agree to disagree. I keep saying one thing, and you keep saying another. Whatever.

NO!!!!!!! Don't stop now, this has been to entertaining of a thread to end in a draw I want to see a knockout

[GePap]

Originally posted by centrifuge


NO!!!!!!! Don't stop now, this has been to entertaining of a thread to end in a draw I want to see a knockout

Only moderators get to knock out anyone, as far as I can tell.

[Master Zen]

I've seen more than one get knocked out, and not precisely thanx to the moderators

[Velociryx]

Actually, *all* of the discussions that GePap and I have centering around this issue end the same way....a draw. We just approach things from a different perspective, is all. At the end of the day, I suspect we wind up on the same side of the proverbial fence more often than not....just for different reasons.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen




what in the world makes you think that France Germany and Russia would have gone to war for any reason!!!!! This is unbelieveable!! I have told you why he persisted, it could have never conceivably crossed his mind that these three countries would have gone to war!! You've been playing Civ too much... countries, hell, ALLIES, don't just go to war for things like that. Do you think Saddam even for once thouth that two NATO allies would go to war over the US over the issue of his WMD or whatever? N-O.

MZ, I think you and I are on the same page on this issue. The point I was making was that Saddam may have believed that France, et al., would do something of the kind to protect him. If he did, he was delusional.

[Master Zen]

He may be crazy but he's not stupid. France would have never even gotten close to fighting for him.

[Master Zen]

Well, if you all want to call it a draw, then I guess this is it, damn, we were only on page 11

We wouldn't have gotten anywhere anyway

buuuuuuuuuut,

still no one answered my question after posting it 3 times so I think it would be rather premature to call it a "draw"...

[Frogman]

Surely Saddam wasn't counting on the french. More likely he believed he could hold off in an urban war long enough to inflame the arab nations to join his cause. Getting help from the french would have been an embarassment to him. Leading an islamic "jihad" agaisnt the evil Americans would have been glory for him.

Iraq didn't use wmd against the kuwaities in 91 because he didn't need to. The iraqis have been burying stuff and hiding stuff all over the place. Once we get some intel on it, it will turn up. I would be surprised if some of it wasn't wmd related.

[Master Zen]

Are you reffering to now or 90/91? (re: use of WMD)

[LoneWolf]

Hey, maybe there are no WMDs after all. Oh well.
Or should we give the whole thing back to Saddam, and say we're sorry.
BTW, where should we start next? Syria? Iran? France? You name it.

[Master Zen]

Why not Florida? Install true democracy there

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Kramerman, when Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1991 it did not attack the US. Your argument is that if Iraq attacked a country which is not a nuclear power it would do so using WMD. In 1991, Iraq had WMD yet did not use them which invalidates any argument that it would do the same now.

no no no... you completely misunderstood me.. perhaps its my fault... go back and reread my posts, and maybe what i was trying to say (below) would be more clear:

My arguement is that Iraq ccan take neighboring countries CONVENTIONALLY, and with enough effective WMD, it could hold off a world coalition aimed at removing Saddam from the country(ies) that he had invaded by threatening either the coalition itself, or neighboring countries (effectively holding them hostage) with WMD.

It is very unlikely for any country to us WMD on a country they are planning to occupy, such as Iraq hypothetically using them in kuwait, as there is a major risk of blowback on your own troops from infections, chemicals, or radiation, so i doubt any country would use mass amounts of WMD on a country they want to invade.

The theat of Saddam seizing multiple major oil producing countries could have a drastic indirect impact on the US. Though the US gets a very small percentage of oil form the ME, Japan and Europe get around 70%. If Saddam seized the middle east, he could control the oil supply to the countries, potentially cutting it off. The economies of Europe and Japan (which like most industrial economies, depend on oil) could be devestated. Poor foreign markets means an economic failure in the US as well. Saddam would have us at his feet, there would be little we could do about it...

There are many other fears of Saddams WMD, this is just one of many, but it relates to the point i was trying to make in my arguement

[Kramerman]

I still find that argument that Saddam was planning to use his WMD to attack others totally unreasonable since he didn't do it when he had a much better chance of winning.

If he wasnt planning on using them, why would he spend who knows how much money on aquiring and developing them?

[gsmoove23]

deterance, sound familiar? He wanted to appear strong, he didn't want to ge annihilated.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman


If he wasnt planning on using them, why would he spend who knows how much money on aquiring and developing them?

Do you understand the concept of deterrence? It works both ways. In fact, the logic of it implies that WMD are actually more usefull by being NOT used, than by being used. The moment you use WMD the whole point of actually having them disappears as you face the risk of equal or greater retaliation.

The Saudi example: let's say Iraq wanted to take on SA, and threatens to use WMD. Do you know with what it would be threatened back? yes, Coalition WMD. Would Iraq risk national suicide for using WMD? Nope. Thus, deterrence worked, just the threat of use of these weapons was enough for the other not to use them.

Now for the "threat". The threat is an empty one and it showed in 1991 and now. Iraq had WMD in 1991 thus there existed an implicit threat to use them. Did that deterr the US? Nope. They still attacked. Did Iraq counter this attack with WMD? Nope. Same thing today. The excuse of Iraq eventually using WMD as blackmail, as you can see, is pretty empty.

Also, the US was aware of Iraq using WMD against its own population during the Chemical Ali campaign against the Kurds. Did it do anything? NOOOOO. Just goes to show how little the US really cared (cares) about what happened to the Iraqi population. Only when a real interest was threatened (ehem.. oil) did it send half a million troops back then.

Sorry guys, that whole "Iraqi Freedom" excuse today holds no ground....

Wait, Bush is a "compasionate conservative", oh so I guess I'm wrong and he really cares about the Iraqis. Right...

[Ned]

At least one Republican Guard commander (a colonel) reported that he received no orders from Baghdad after the hostilities started. Perhaps this provides an explanation as to why no weapons of mass destruction were used.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
At least one Republican Guard commander (a colonel) reported that he received no orders from Baghdad after the hostilities started. Perhaps this provides an explanation as to why no weapons of mass destruction were used.

Yeah, and this colonel is the sole operator of all of Iraq's WMD....

[gsmoove23]

Its obvious that there were large troop movements within the country after the war had started. As the troops were advancing on Baghdad large movements of reinforcements were seen. If he was going to use them he would've. However, if his troops were issued gas masks as has been reported this could just as well have been a subtle threat that they would be used to get coalition troops jumpy. Psychological warfare. Deterrance in action(though obviously not very effective).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Yeah, and this colonel is the sole operator of all of Iraq's WMD....

I am sure Master Zen that you deliberately missed the point.

[Master Zen]

There was no point to begin with

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Actually, *all* of the discussions that GePap and I have centering around this issue end the same way....a draw. We just approach things from a different perspective, is all. At the end of the day, I suspect we wind up on the same side of the proverbial fence more often than not....just for different reasons.

-=Vel=-

'


Well, Let me just say that I've enjoyed reading these posts, and learning others opinions about the Iraqi situation. I've been extremely busy the past several months, with very little time to spend on these boards, but when I do have time to stop by, it's always good to see a strong heartfelt discussion going on

However, No offense GePap, but I really was agreeing with the arguments that Vel was making more than I was with yours. His arguments, have seemed more Reaganesque / this is the way it is/ sorry if you don't like it, which is more my style. I, however have still been waiting for the knockout punch, because so far all that I've been seeing is jabs Nevertheless, its been good stuff

[Master Zen]

no knockout punch? how about no one being able to answer why Iraq didn't use WMD in 90/91 so why expect them to use them in the future? Why the US never did anything to end Chemical Ali's attacks on the Kurds (if they actually cared about the Iraqi people).

There's been a lot of knockout punches, just that people choose to ignore answering posts which they know will kill their own arguments.

In these types of threads, its best to see what ISN'T answered, rather than what is.

[N35t0r]

Just one minor point which got forgotten (or ignored due to the sheer stupidity contained in it....

Originally posted by Ned


As someone said here before, Che will inform us of the details in due course. Let's ask him. He is proud of the achievements of the communist party.

On the first place, El Che esta muerto. he is dead, and despite the slogan "El Che Vive" (El Che is alive) he is not. (Wether his ideals are still alive, it is not for us to discuss here)

Secondly, there are virtually no communist parties in South America... A series of US-supported (more like US-caused) Military coups succeded in 'neutralizing the evil communist advance on South America' (Read: Violent kidnapping and/or murder of thousands of innocent people and a couple of 'revolutionary' murderers)



So stop all this 'i don't know how to reply let's make up stuff' and inform yourself so that you don't at least bring your own ideas down by proving how ignorant you are...
There were protests against that resolution, in the same way that there are protests every time the US bullies any south american nation into voting something for its own benefit, when it continually ignores them...

[Urban Ranger]

Hey you are back. How long have you been away?

[N35t0r]

quite a while.... i sporadically posted in the spanish forum, but not more than that....

anyway, i might post some more often now...