AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2004-11-15, 23:22   Link #41
Keitaro
*Kyuuketsuki Otaku*
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere in Hawaii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
Thinking back, I don't see why we didn't include Saddam stepping down and being tried for war crimes in the cease fire terms after the first gulf war. It would have made a lot more sense then leaving him in power, and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I'm sure we could have found someone that we could have 'managed' in the Iraqi government at the time.
Finally something I can agree with. I too don't understand why we didn't remove Saddam in the first gulf war. It makes absolutely no sense. We all knew he was a evil dictator. So why not? So much trouble.
__________________
Keitaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 23:56   Link #42
Sanjuronord
セクシーなパイロット
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kentucky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
Thinking back, I don't see why we didn't include Saddam stepping down and being tried for war crimes in the cease fire terms after the first gulf war. It would have made a lot more sense then leaving him in power, and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I'm sure we could have found someone that we could have 'managed' in the Iraqi government at the time.
That would have made the cease fire a very, very, hard sale. In hindsight, finishing Iraq back then would have been better than the current mess...but y'know... hingsight... 20/20... blah blah... there were probably plenty of points in the past we could have done things differently to prevent the current mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Ah...ok, I'm fine. I really I'm, see look, I'm smiling really....glad you find my posts amusing.

Now where did I put my .357
Hey I'd have gone after dragonz20 but I've argued with him before and he is a master debater


God that was lame...
Sanjuronord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 23:57   Link #43
aahhsin
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Finally something I can agree with. I too don't understand why we didn't remove Saddam in the first gulf war. It makes absolutely no sense. We all knew he was a evil dictator. So why not? So much trouble.
Because remember the First Gulf War was to defend Kuwait. And Saddam promised to allow UN inspectors and such. Guess they thought that was enough to punish him. Saddam did order a Cease fire too. So if your enemy already gave up, it'll make you look like the bad guy to actually go in there and attack them.

Another guess I think is that the UN already thought about the resistance from the citizens and probably China, or Russia used their Veto to cancel an invasion. Another guess could be because if they did indeed attack Iraq, they'll have to rebuild the country and of course Iraq will have a bunch of small factions with Saddam out of the picture.
aahhsin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 01:02   Link #44
user8047
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
(im not trying to offend anyone, these r simply my opinions)
-after reading over the conversation i thought id submit my thoughts
a negative relationship no doubt about it has been formed with iraq, and on tv and or the internet, u can hear iraqis curse the states and ask wat theyve done to deserve this sort of punishment...wait, i thought the americans were supposed to help iraq? u no get rid of the leader, then everything would be great. his attack on terrorists in iraq focuses on his main goals mainly, he doesnt care for the peoples well being in iraq, otherwise he would probably stop killing them...probably. bush's logic is like killing a building full of civilians, just so he could kill a few terrorists, not caring about the other innocent people inside the building.
a big part of the war was no doubt for oil, otherwise the americans wouldnt be pumping gas back to the US. maybe bush saw it as a win win situation. take some oil, free the country from a terrifying leader, then every 1 can congratulate u for taking bak sadaam and US will be known for not only being the stongest country military wise in the world, but for saving and helping 3rd world countries.
although every 1 would like to, u cant just blame bush, hes the guy thats hired to make stupid disicions and take the blame for it, u can take this all the bak to the media, or the political infulence, w/e u think causes this actions, u can blame a lot of people and influences.
many american troops die, and more iraqis troops die. for those who say it was a good decision to send troops into iraq, none of these disicions r good, but war exists becuz of bad desicions. Bush if just trying to make other countries fear the US that way his decisions can be backed up by other countries, reasuring his dicisions are correct to the people living in his country.
user8047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 01:15   Link #45
JOJOS'STAR
Ero~Kairin! ^-^ Yeay!
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ~ Montreal
I love Irakistan. Peace to Osama binLaden. Nuke the bastard!!!!
JOJOS'STAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 01:18   Link #46
tanuki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
Thinking back, I don't see why we didn't include Saddam stepping down and being tried for war crimes in the cease fire terms after the first gulf war. It would have made a lot more sense then leaving him in power, and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I'm sure we could have found someone that we could have 'managed' in the Iraqi government at the time.
A few possibly relevant points on this. First, Saddam would never have agreed to the cease fire if it was contingent on his removal and possible trial for crimes against humanity. He would have continued to tell his people that they were winning and then sent them gladly into a coalition forces meat grinder to protect his own highly overvalued butt. Second, the coalition in the first gulf war was too large and with the forced removal of Saddam there would have been too many foreign cooks trying to season the Iraqi pot to their own specific tastes by picking Saddam's replacement. The Iraqi people, if the choice was left up to them, would have probably sunk to the level of civil warfare over the issue of which factions (sunni, shite, kurd, etc.) choice would be the one to replace Saddam. Third, Bush Sr. had more sense than his son in understanding what a costly pain-in-the-ass it would be for precious little tangible gain to go into Iraq and remove Saddam, and then need to assume the task of nation building to deal with the destabalizing political power vacuum which would follow Saddam's sudden removal by foreign forces from outside of Iraq.

Since the main objective of the coalition going in was to drive invading Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and put a stop to Saddam's aggression towards neighboring countries...that much could be accomplished through heavy reliance on aircraft/smartbombs and using the stockpile of tomahawk cruise missles Ronald Reagan built-up during his presidency. Leaving Saddam in power, but with his military forces so trashed that the primary danger they posed was to the Iraqi people who were stuck dealing with the nut. Removal of Saddam was then left as an internal political problem for the Iraqi people to deal with. Unfortunately, as we saw no matter how tight the sanction screw was tightened nor how bad things became for the Iraqi people as a result, no popular uprising ever materialized in Iraq to remove Saddam.
tanuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 02:29   Link #47
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanuki
A few possibly relevant points on this. First, Saddam would never have agreed to the cease fire if it was contingent on his removal and possible trial for crimes against humanity.
It's not like he would have had much choice, US forces were 50 miles away from Bagdad with no iraqi forces in postion to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanuki
He would have continued to tell his people that they were winning and then sent them gladly into a coalition forces meat grinder to protect his own highly overvalued butt.

Second, the coalition in the first gulf war was too large and with the forced removal of Saddam there would have been too many foreign cooks trying to season the Iraqi pot to their own specific tastes by picking Saddam's replacement. The Iraqi people, if the choice was left up to them, would have probably sunk to the level of civil warfare over the issue of which factions (sunni, shite, kurd, etc.) choice would be the one to replace Saddam.

Third, Bush Sr. had more sense than his son in understanding what a costly pain-in-the-ass it would be for precious little tangible gain to go into Iraq and remove Saddam, and then need to assume the task of nation building to deal with the destabalizing political power vacuum which would follow Saddam's sudden removal by foreign forces from outside of Iraq.
At the time the Iraqi people didn't have the resentment towards the US that a decade of heavy sanctions built up. They knew saddam was wrong, and probably would have accepted a new leader if the US didn't shake things up too much and left a lot of the existing power structure in place. There was no real need to take apart the entire government. Sure it still wouldn't have been a democracy, but does every country on earth have to be one? Maybe put the Iraqi prime minister in charge of the government. That way there wouldn't have been the chaos that followed the complete distruction of the Iraqi government. Plus, since he was someone already in the Iraqi government, the other nations involved probably wouldn't have had any strong objections, and it would leave a lot of the old system in place. I'm not saying the guy was any better than saddam, but he did seem smart enough to realize that cooperating with the US would be a better approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanuki
Since the main objective of the coalition going in was to drive invading Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and put a stop to Saddam's aggression towards neighboring countries...that much could be accomplished through heavy reliance on aircraft/smartbombs and using the stockpile of tomahawk cruise missles Ronald Reagan built-up during his presidency. Leaving Saddam in power, but with his military forces so trashed that the primary danger they posed was to the Iraqi people who were stuck dealing with the nut. Removal of Saddam was then left as an internal political problem for the Iraqi people to deal with. Unfortunately, as we saw no matter how tight the sanction screw was tightened nor how bad things became for the Iraqi people as a result, no popular uprising ever materialized in Iraq to remove Saddam.
As you say, that's because we left saddam with too much of his military, which enabled him to crush any attempted uprising before it was a threat. Even if we decided not to remove him, if we would have kept up the attack for one more day, the military forces used to suppress the kurds and others would have been destroyed.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 04:35   Link #48
Oblivious
666th Children
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
I didn't bother to read through that nice long sea of text, so forgive me if this was already mentioned.

Osama has been going against Islamic values from the moment he started his terror campaign. Values that advocate peace and brotherhood. Just ask any morderate Muslim.

This 'approval' he has for mass murder seems based on an eye for an eye logic. This seems like a complete cop-out to me.
Oblivious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 05:00   Link #49
tanuki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
It's not like he would have had much choice, US forces were 50 miles away from Bagdad with no iraqi forces in postion to stop them.
But this get into that whole "We're here by invitation as good foreign infidel liberators [of Kuwait], not unwanted bad conqueoring foreign infidel invaders of Iraq". We tried to do the minimum necessary to accomplish the military objective of the moment to get the oil fields out of Saddam's hands without offending the already anti-western sensibilities of those in neighboring muslim OPEC member countries.

Quote:
At the time the Iraqi people didn't have the resentment towards the US that a decade of heavy sanctions built up. They knew saddam was wrong, and probably would have accepted a new leader if the US didn't shake things up too much and left a lot of the existing power structure in place. There was no real need to take apart the entire government. Sure it still wouldn't have been a democracy, but does every country on earth have to be one? Maybe put the Iraqi prime minister in charge of the government. That way there wouldn't have been the chaos that followed the complete distruction of the Iraqi government. Plus, since he was someone already in the Iraqi government, the other nations involved probably wouldn't have had any strong objections, and it would leave a lot of the old system in place. I'm not saying the guy was any better than saddam, but he did seem smart enough to realize that cooperating with the US would be a better approach.
If an individual was a prominent official and part of the existing political structure in Iraq, they had Saddam's blessing to hold office and were tainted because of their association with him. Even though from a practical standpoint it might be better to leave some key officials in place, even if it was just a temporary move prior to holding elections, the preference would probably still be to clear out the potential troublemakers and work from a clean slate. If that makes things more difficult or requires more time, the meter may be running on this taxi trip but it's not like the guys sitting in the backseat and giving directions are paying the bill personally.

Quote:
As you say, that's because we left saddam with too much of his military, which enabled him to crush any attempted uprising before it was a threat. Even if we decided not to remove him, if we would have kept up the attack for one more day, the military forces used to suppress the kurds and others would have been destroyed.
There could have been a concern that if Saddam's military was all but eliminated at the end of the first gulf war, after coalition forces returned to their respective countries this would have presented a golden opportunity for Iran to invade and defeat a weakened Iraq. When it came to aquiring and using weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's primary target for them was always Iran first. The Iranians knew as much so taking advantage of an opportunity to eliminate that continuing threat would be high on their list of priorities.
tanuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 06:58   Link #50
Thany
Unfair
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Oh boy not the "we only did it for the oil" speech again. Sure oil was part of it but it wasn't only for oil. They’re lots of other legitimate reasons why we decided to invade Iraq. For instance the possibility of Iraq having WMD's or in the process of restarting their WMD programs once again, what about liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny.
Well it's easy to know that oil was about 95% of the reason
You just have to see how Bush didn't care that he wasn't approved for this war, he just wanted to get his oil and to attack the Iraq.
Also, in case you didn't know, the USA are not in a that good position against the Iraq, even though their army is way stronger than the rebels.
Also, the US army hasn't only killed rebels, but also might have killed innocents people.

Quote:
Hm...I'm starting to think I'm the only animesuki member here that supports Bush and the war on terror (Iraq included).
This is a sentence that make me want to say something very funny that I've heard but it might be a little mean, so I won't.
__________________
Thany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 07:09   Link #51
tanuki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblivious
I didn't bother to read through that nice long sea of text, so forgive me if this was already mentioned.

Osama has been going against Islamic values from the moment he started his terror campaign. Values that advocate peace and brotherhood. Just ask any morderate Muslim.

This 'approval' he has for mass murder seems based on an eye for an eye logic. This seems like a complete cop-out to me.
It's more a matter of whom Osama directs his terror campaign against. Directing the campaign against the unbelievers in the west hardly raises much opposition and koran scripture quoting in muslim countries. As though Osama's actions, while technically being wrong, are actions that most muslims are willing to overlook as they go on about their daily lives.

At least it's not like there are masses of people taking to the streets in muslim countries to denounce Osama and go on to advocate peace and brotherhood with people in west. But you could probably get a mob together on short notice in most middle eastern cities with no problem if the purpose was to protest the west for [insert any reason here] and call for a jihad against the US. Complete with derogative but colorful chants by the crowd and flag/ foreign leader effigy burning.
tanuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 10:26   Link #52
Bun-kun
Liberal Screamer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Age: 32
Send a message via AIM to Bun-kun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Finally something I can agree with. I too don't understand why we didn't remove Saddam in the first gulf war. It makes absolutely no sense. We all knew he was a evil dictator. So why not? So much trouble.
Well George Bush sr. said in his book, that if he were to take down Saddam then, Iraq would prolly fall into civil war, power struggle, and a haven for terrorist. He also didn't like the thought of Urban Warfare. hmmmm G Dubb should talk to his daddy more maybe he'll pick up a few things. But what can you say about a guy who has a C average in History
__________________
Bun-kun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 11:42   Link #53
hamiko_san
September Jellyfish
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
10 things more, you never know.
__________________
Too much of a good thing is an even greater thing!

Last edited by hamiko_san; 2007-12-25 at 16:37.
hamiko_san is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 16:26   Link #54
user8047
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
i dont think iraq is in a position to be attacking the US. their having enough problems defending their own land. a lot of ppl in iraq r dead and injured, and most of the system that would have any influence on an attack to the US are in danger, or dead, and right now an attack on the states would only cause more termoil on their country from the states, and iraq would be accused mroe for having possesion on nuclear bombs and such.
if ur taken under by the terrorirst warnings on tv, and when the meter hits high u hide in ur bomb shelter, ur living under fear, and probably belive every word the media fishes out to u. if the country can be kept under fear theyll support the attack on terrorists becuz ur over concerned about having a terrorist attack on u. good thing the countries pinned down, and barely able to defend itself with its civilians dying. if theres ever a counter attack, itll be on every channel, so ull have fair warning to wait in ur bomb shelter with a shotgun
user8047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 16:33   Link #55
Bun-kun
Liberal Screamer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Age: 32
Send a message via AIM to Bun-kun
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamiko_san
I agree with you, This is very true.There is No other way to deal with this war with people like saddam and Bush.They Cannot understand of course,If Saddam Does attack the USA , we can't just let our family be bombed.Like keitaro said is either attak or be attacked...Before it's too late.

There was no evidence that Iraq was goin to attack the US. But there were tons on Osama Bin Laden. G Dubb just didn't care to read his debriefing.
__________________
Bun-kun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 18:32   Link #56
aahhsin
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thany
Well it's easy to know that oil was about 95% of the reason
You just have to see how Bush didn't care that he wasn't approved for this war, he just wanted to get his oil and to attack the Iraq.
Also, in case you didn't know, the USA are not in a that good position against the Iraq, even though their army is way stronger than the rebels.
Also, the US army hasn't only killed rebels, but also might have killed innocents people.
Oh, you silly French can't win a war without the US anyways. Unless the opponent is also french as in the French Revolution, then again.... it did get taken over by a man from Corsica which only 10 years or so eariler should have been Italian.

(I love Albinoblacksheep)

But anyways.

If you know anything about the US land, we CAN be self sufficent in oil if we start digging for our Shael rocks in the Midwest. Heck we have so much Oil in Alaska to last us another 100 years. Then of course all of our drilling in the Pacific. I'll just trust Bush on this one, where he claimed that Saddam had WMD. Oil is a part of it, but I'll just say "Manifest Destiny"

So why not dig there? It's just not logical to build all those refineries, go through the WWF, and all that stuff.

Yes I know he doesn't have any, and blah blah blah, but we didn't know that until we actually invaded AND checked ourselves. If someone kicks out our inspectors, doesn't like us all that much, we called them evil, what was the US to think?

The US did kill innocent people. Heck there was a video recently where an Iraqi was playing dead to try and escape, then US soldiers were screaming

"That fucker is Breathing!"
"He's not Fucking Dead!!"
*Rat-Tat-Tat.
"He's dead now."
aahhsin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 19:19   Link #57
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by aahhsin
If you know anything about the US land, we CAN be self sufficent in oil if we start digging for our Shael rocks in the Midwest. Heck we have so much Oil in Alaska to last us another 100 years. Then of course all of our drilling in the Pacific. I'll just trust Bush on this one, where he claimed that Saddam had WMD. Oil is a part of it, but I'll just say "Manifest Destiny"
Not true, even the most optimistic estimate I've seen gives a ten year supply at most. Some environmental groups claim as little as a 6 month supply. The truth is probably about a 5 year supply, based on the approximate average.
As long as we are dependent on oil, we will always be dependent on foreign oil. There simply isn't enough in the US itself. Though we do have an abudance of coal, that would last 400 years if a cheap, efficient way to convert it into oil was developed. There are methods, but as far as I know they are too expensive and complex to do on a large scale.

As for manifest destiny, in a thousand years history books will show a map of this era that will have the US spread across most of the planet, based on the location of our military bases. Isn't enough to kow that school children a thousand years from now will think we ruled most of the planet without actually doing so? Why go through the trouble of actually trying to rule it when we'll get the credit anyway?
maybe...
__________________

Last edited by Kamui4356; 2004-11-16 at 19:32.
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 19:33   Link #58
Keitaro
*Kyuuketsuki Otaku*
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere in Hawaii
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamiko_san
I agree with you, This is very true.There is No other way to deal with this war with people like saddam and Bush.They Cannot understand of course,If Saddam Does attack the USA , we can't just let our family be bombed.Like keitaro said is either attak or be attacked...Before it's too late.
Glad to know some ppl agree with some of the things I'm saying. YAY I'm not alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thany
This is a sentence that make me want to say something very funny that I've heard but it might be a little mean, so I won't.
Now you got me curious. Go ahead say it I don't mind really.
__________________
Keitaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 21:28   Link #59
Bun-kun
Liberal Screamer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Age: 32
Send a message via AIM to Bun-kun
Attacked or be attacked huh, funny Osama thinks the same thing. you think on the same line as these despicable terrorist, which makes you a despicable terrorist yourself.
__________________
Bun-kun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-16, 21:40   Link #60
音楽は死んだ
Boobies˛ = Fun
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newfoundland & Labrador
Age: 32
Send a message via Yahoo to 音楽は死んだ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
As for manifest destiny, in a thousand years history books will show a map of this era that will have the US spread across most of the planet, based on the location of our military bases. Isn't enough to kow that school children a thousand years from now will think we ruled most of the planet without actually doing so? Why go through the trouble of actually trying to rule it when we'll get the credit anyway?
maybe...

couldent resist
音楽は死んだ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.