+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: What was this war about? (re: Iraq) (/thread-11618.html)
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - kandrathe - 04-28-2003
I had heard that the US has found Roland Missile Systems that were manufactured within the last few years.
It was reported in Newsweek, but here is a synopsis... Newsmaxx synopsis...
As for Germany, I was not clear. I was talking primarily about German positions prior to this conflict. My impression of the German governments position was that it made some bold stands, but when pressed, caved in quickly to a softer position.
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Occhidiangela - 04-28-2003
Nice one. :)
PS to Moldran: I think the sentiment in the US would be more toward encouraging EU to develop a valid stand alone security posture, and to resource it, since that would allow us to significantly decrease the size of our standing forces, and thus drop our percentage GDP on defense a bit. Personnel are a significant cost, and knocking some 50-70,000 from our force structure would present considerable savings, as would the maintenance of the facilities.
The down side is that on a personal level, fewer Germans and Americans would have the opportunity to build strong personal friendships, as my parents did with three German families (we families have been friends since the early 1960's).
All change comes with a price.
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - DaveO - 04-28-2003
If weapons of mass destruction are found, I certainly expect accusations that it was planted. The US credibility was lowered even more the moment the war started(Bush sure seems to have a way with making bad foreign policy).
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Jester - 04-29-2003
"The problem with Iraq, is the U.S. pi$$ed on it while it was still a "campfire" instead of waiting for it to get out of control and turn into a "forest fire". That irritated a few "people" who still wanted to enjoy the warmth of the "campfire". "
Presumably, you are discussing Gulf I, not Gulf II here.
When Saddam Hussein, operating under the poor presumption that he had tacit US support, invaded Kuwait, international (not just American) opinion turned sharply against him. The authority in charge of such things, the UN, authorized the removal of Saddam from Kuwait, since aquisition of territory by force is soundly condemned pretty much everywhere, including and especially Europe.
Prior to this, the US was closer to Mr. Hussein than anyone, so the argument could hardly apply there. Afterwards, the chances of Iraq turning into a cigarette, let alone a forest fire, were negligible, barring the development of WMD. It is becoming more and more apparent that this exception was not significant, and that Iraq was not only containable, but vastly more so than at any other point in Hussein's reign (and Gulf I wasn't exactly a close thing).
Or was that not the analogy you were making?
Jester
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Moldran - 04-29-2003
Recent News: At their meeting in Brussel, Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg decide to establish their own general staff to be able to act indepently from NATO until the end of 2004. It is also said that EU crisis response forces should be established.
The meeting was critisized as "excluding other European countries" and being a political move against NATO and USA.
Moldran
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Occhidiangela - 04-29-2003
Prior to this, the US was closer to Mr. Hussein than anyone
Bullsh**, Jester, I can name two far closer:
France
Russia
How about you check your history before you make such claims?
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Jester - 04-29-2003
That would just completely invalidate my argument if the US was a mere third, rather than a whopping first. A complete reversal of my point. Or maybe it really wouldn't matter at all, especially if you consider the overall Middle East situation.
The US ran the show in the middle east, insofar as that was possible without outright conquest. Kissinger made sure that everyone not under the control of the US was kept out of the game. Saddam was an agent of that control. France had been kept quite effectively out of the middle east thoughout the cold war except as a willing partner to US control. The Soviets made remarkably few inroads, except Egypt under Nasser, which was ambiguous at best.
My point was that the US was not merely complicit, but crucial in the middle east game at that point, and they chose to play with Saddam as a partner. That Russia or France might have been incidentally closer is not relevant, at least to my argument.
Jester
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Occhidiangela - 04-29-2003
Does it ever occur to you that the Cold War had its own logic, and that politics made strange bedfellows? Your perspective is skewed by being about 25 years 'time late.'
Saddam was as in bed with the USSR long before the US found him to be a convenient foil to the Ayatollah and Mullah led Islamic Rebublic in Iran. Soviets considered Mid East very much in their sphere of influence, and the French were the folks who build the Iraqi nuke plant. Russian and French arms are all over Iraq. The USS Stark was hit by Exocet Missiles fired from French Built Super Entendard jets. The admiration for Stalin is not coincidental, nor is his aping of the methods.
What made Saddam an 'ally of convenience' for the US in part of the 1980's? In Kissinger's era, the Major Player in the Mid East and Persian Gulf was
The Bloody Shah of Iran.
Not Saddam Hussein.
Don't forget, the Shah sold us Iranian oil when the Saudi's led the 1973 boycott. The OPEC embargo. Iraq was involved in that. Kissinger did what to solve that problem? Hmmmmm, shuttle diplomacy . . . yeah.
Once Iran threw out the Shah and declared the US The Great Satan, you have a reshuffling in Washington to figure out who to work with to deal with That strategic issue. The global situation changes with each sunrise, and folks adapt.
The enemy of my enemy can be a useful ally. See also USSR/US alliance 1941-1945.
The US has stayed heavily engaged in the Mid East for, as I see it, two, maybe three, primary reasons.
1. Oil and its impact on the Global economy. In cold war, conrol of that would give USSR a stranglehold on Western economies.
2. Israel. We decreed that it shall exist, back 948ish, through various UN and international actions, and that piece of policy has not changed in some 55 years.
3. The Suez Canal (See international trade again)
A variety of other reasons that I see as being of considerably lesser impact.
Your belief that Iraq was a good and loyal ally of the US is purest poppycock.
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Jester - 04-30-2003
When did I say that Iraq was a pure and loyal ally? Poppycock maybe, but not my contention. Indeed, the record shows the desired result of the Iran Iraq war was a Pox on Both Their Houses.
However...
It doesn't matter how loyal HE was. It matters what the US did. And you supported him during the very years when he represented a "campfire", as the analogy I was arguing with goes. What he did before that was pretty typical (typically awful) of a third world dictator. But it also was small potatoes, compared with the Iran/Iraq war or the Gulf I, the major examples of "fire".
That the cold war had its own logic is not an argument. It did, and everything has to be seen in that light. But does that translate to a carte blanche for everything in the region? If so, then surely the local players in the middle east get that priveledge as much as the Superpowers. If, on the other hand, we're going to judge actions (appropriately contextualized, yes, but not swept under the cold war rug), then we have to look at what happened. The US was willing to support him, having lost half of their enforcers in the region to the Ayatollah. Sure, they were protecting their interests. Sure, they were protecting trade and oil. (Israel... I don't think was much an issue in supporting Iraq.) Does any of those things count as a legitimate excuse? Not unless practically every action by any nation is excusable by the same grounds, including nearly everything Iraq has ever done.
Kissinger I mentioned primarily as a matter of doctrine. It was his idea to curb Soviet influence by shutting them out completely. A similar lockout happened to the French after WWII, and to the British, except as lieutenants of US power. The US had the power to do so, and it largely succeeded. Israel and Iran were more than enough to keep the region stable, until Iran went down, and then Iraq was propped up to counter it. Iraq knew enough by the '80s that Soviet support was irrelevant compared to US support, and was more than happy to bask in the warm glow previously reserved for the Shah.
The French could not act without at least tacit US approval. The Soviets, maybe, but by the time Saddam was in expansionist mode, the Soviets were falling apart at the seams. So, what's the idea, that the French gave Saddam the fuel for his "fire", despite US protests? I think not. That the French sold him weapons when the US was doing the same hardly exonerates the US. Indeed, as the major Superpower, the US sets the agenda, and therefore bears most of the responsibility. Is it that the USSR was Saddam's important ally in fulfilling his ambitions? I don't think he'd think so, at least during the '80s, when he did most of his expanding.
Jester
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Zenda - 05-01-2003
Hello Occhidiangela,
Perhaps you should check some history yourself, before calling things garbage.
Hussein joined the Baath party in 1956, and the Baath party took control of Iraq in 1963, with the support of the CIA (because the Baath murdered communists on request, without questions asked). At that time, Hussein was about 20-25 years old, so I don't think he had ties with the USSR before that.
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - kandrathe - 05-01-2003
Then do you hold the Italians responsible for the atrocites of the Roman Empire? How responsible are the Dutch for the atrocites and current situation in Indonesia, or India, or Bosnia? It seems far fetched as that was some time ago, but still I think what Occhi was getting at was that you need to view history in context of other global politics and the norms of that day. We can look back and condemn the actions of many with today's morality and sense of justice. I guess I'm just wondering at what point you should let go of what has happened to move on with the current situation. Was El Cid justified in rallying nothern Spanish nobility into driving the Moors from Spain after 400 years of Moorish occupation? Should Libya feel justified in reclaiming that territory? In the US and Canada, should all the indigineous tribes combine forces to expel the European invaders? I mean most of the central & western US was conquered in just the last 150 years. Far less time than what justified the formation of Isreal. Hitlers and Stalins rise to power was a mere 60 years ago, and in 1960 the US was locked in WW3 (Cold War) and in direct competition with an aggressive and ruthless KGB. How responsible are we (the entire world community) for idly watching the genocide in Rwanda, or Sudan?
Ok, so there was some collusion between the CIA, and MI6 and the Nasserite officers that ousted the brutal Col. Kassem. Was that a misktake? If you think that, then there were many "mistakes" (i.e. Vietnam IMO) that happened during the Johnson administration that altered the history of US geopolitics. It is a little self serving to the argument to rake up partial historical facts for the purposes of condemning the present. Was it nice? No. Was it neccesary? Probably. But, one could analyze history for a lifetime and still only have biased opinions.
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Zenda - 05-01-2003
Hello Kandrathe,
Not sure if that was addressed to me, but if it was, you should realize it was just a reply to correct a mistake.
You do have a point, though. It's not fair to keep blaming Iraq, France or USSR forever.
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Nystul - 05-01-2003
Hmm, mistake corrected then. What I'm trying to figure out is how it came to pass that the Iraqi military was built up with Soviet model tanks and fighters. Maybe Hussein stole them from all the Communists he was murdering on behalf of the CIA?
You can hardly assert that the U.S. was a major ally to Iraq prior to the first Gulf War by citing a single event some 30 years prior...
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Moldran - 05-02-2003
The kind of Soviet military equipment Iraq had was very easy to get on the world market, especially at the beginning of the 1990ies after the collapse of the USSR.
What do you mean by "first Gulf War", btw ?
Moldran
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - kandrathe - 05-02-2003
The Iraqi relationship with the Soviets...
What was this war about? (re: Iraq) - Nystul - 05-02-2003
The kind of Soviet military equipment Iraq had was very easy to get on the world market, especially at the beginning of the 1990ies after the collapse of the USSR.
Clearly Iraq's military buildup happened well before the collapse of the USSR, though.
What do you mean by "first Gulf War", btw ?
I meant the conflict that started with Iraq invading Kuwait.