I think Somalia is definitely on the list. Is it a Muslim country? I know it's on near the fringe of Muslim influence in Africa
Those who want us to go after a non-Muslim country first may get their wish.
Apparently North Korea has been warned by Bush too.
Apparently North Korea has been warned by Bush too.
<< Hmmm.......good call there ATLien247!
But still, how did things "really go"????? I'm fairly certain everybody already knew this so........ Also, to be specific, Schwarzkopf & Bush wanted us to proceed into Baghdad!:Q It was The UN, whom had the backing of the Britts. and French, and even Powell whom were against it! The UN was convinced "Our Objective had Been Reached" and we needed to pull out. They subsequentely convinced enough "U.S. Powers that be" to agree and it was halted. BUT, the U.S. has known for years we would end up back there......... >>Perhaps I've been a little too cryptic, as was stated in a previous post...
Don't you ever wonder what went on behind the scenes? The things that convinced, as you said, the "U.S. Powers that be" to agree to withdraw? Don't you think that is even a little out of character for the world's superpower?
The fact of the matter is the U.S. lost the Gulf War. Otherwise, we would have never needed to go back.
Stupid idea if you ask me. At least right now Iraq is a totalitarian state, not an Islamist state. If we go in and remove Saddam, what's to guarantee we are not going to destabilize Iraq enough that it will allow militant islamist groups to take over and get their hands on the weapons of mass destruction that we suspect Iraq has? Anarchy is terrorists' best friend. Saddam knows that if he uses WMD's on his neigbors, he is toast. So he keeps tabs on the WMD's. But if he is gone, who will do that? We could remove the regime only to leave ourselves with a state like Afganistan.
<<
<< Hmmm.......good call there ATLien247!
But still, how did things "really go"????? I'm fairly certain everybody already knew this so........ Also, to be specific, Schwarzkopf & Bush wanted us to proceed into Baghdad!:Q It was The UN, whom had the backing of the Britts. and French, and even Powell whom were against it! The UN was convinced "Our Objective had Been Reached" and we needed to pull out. They subsequentely convinced enough "U.S. Powers that be" to agree and it was halted. BUT, the U.S. has known for years we would end up back there......... >>Perhaps I've been a little too cryptic, as was stated in a previous post...
Don't you ever wonder what went on behind the scenes? The things that convinced, as you said, the "U.S. Powers that be" to agree to withdraw? Don't you think that is even a little out of character for the world's superpower? >>
Yeah, actually I do know how it went. The U.N. Sec. Coun. basicly had the agreement of everyone in the coalition to pull support and their Hdwre./men and condem the U.S. actions if we proceeded with further ground movements! Out of character?????? No, I'd say not.....I don't know how old you are, or were then, but, if we would have decided to proceed, we would have come under a lot of pressure in times which were already tense and if you can recall, several coalition members were already "flaking out"..........
<< The fact of the matter is the U.S. lost the Gulf War. Otherwise, we would have never needed to go back. >>
Fact??????? Well, it's pretty easy to see you weren't there now isn't it???? So......we "lost" huh???? How is it then that the Iraqis were surrendering to anyone whom they could find???? We could have been in Baghdad in days if we had the backing of the U.N. and all the U.S. "Big Wheels" but, under the circumstances it quite easily could have caused many more problems both inside the U.S. and abroad had we proceeded! Have you even read what our goals were in the Gulf???? TO LIBERATE KUWAIT!!!! Don't know about how you think, but, from my point of view since there were no Iraqis left in Kuwait........I'd say the "Objective" lined out was met not?????? As for Saddam, yes, taking him out of action is what most if not all were hoping for in the onset, but, that hadn't occured when the rest of the coalition and the U.N. decided we had reached our objectives and it was time to go so......
As I said before though.......I think EVERYONE was very well aware that there was unfinished business and that further action by another coalition, or forces inside Iraq would be needed, but, it was not to be allowed...... LOST though????? I think you need to go back over the objectives of the Gulf and reconsider that statement..........
<< LOST though????? I think you need to go back over the objectives of the Gulf and reconsider that statement..........
>>Yes, lost. I wouldn't consider it a military loss, so you can keep your pride.
Of course, since I didn't serve during the conflict, I guess that means that I am talking out of my ass, eh?
<<
<< LOST though????? I think you need to go back over the objectives of the Gulf and reconsider that statement..........
>><< Yes, lost. I wouldn't consider it a military loss, so you can keep your pride.
>>I'd just really like to see/hear how you can qualify that statement OK????
The objectives of the Persian Gulf War were clearly stated to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi forces............care to tell me how/where this wasn't done?????? LOL! << Of course, since I didn't serve during the conflict, I guess that means that I am talking out of my ass, eh? >>
Well, I don't know you so I won't make that judgement, but, it does seem as though you are a bit unclear as to the parameters of the conflict especially at the end.......
I believe the only reason you are saying it was a "loss" is because Saddam was/is still in power, but, since this was not an objective of the war, that would make yours an incorrect statement. By contrast though, was it a mistake to leave him (Saddam) in power and not have his control over Iraq listed as an objective to be taken away? Yes, that was a mistake and one Bush and Schwarzkopf did not want to permit! << Fine, I will concede, since we are obviously not looking at the bigger picture here... >>
No, I believe you are just looking at the "picture" as it pertains to the Gulf War incorrectly......
Arab League Warns Against Attacking Iraq
CAIRO (Reuters) - The head of the 22-member Arab League said on Tuesday that Arabs would not stand for any attack on Iraq as an extension of the U.S. ``war on terrorism'' and said such a move would destroy the present global coalition.
Essentially the same headlines were run in 1990. That is the main reason the US did not move into Iraq. The Arab nations will harbor terrorists, bomb and gas their own people but will not allow US intervention to stop Saddam.
It's a fscked up region.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
This worldwide war on terrorism is starting to sound like "Be our friends OR ELSE!", which is very unsettling. Before any more strikes take place, I'd like to know:
1) What is the situation like in Iraq/Iran/Libya/other potential targets?
2) How are the people and human rights? Even if the country isn't linked directly to a terrorist agenda, maybe some help towards stabilization can be offered in the way of military support to make sure radicals don't gain power...and yes, I am in favour of cultural interference from the outside. Every country affects us all globally so we might as well realize we have an investment in keeping all places relatively steady.
3) How, specifically, is the country in question linked to terrorism, is there any one person/organization we're after, or are we just gonna roll in a helluva lot of firepower and somehow ensure everyone who may have the glimmer of violence in their eyes becomes our friend? That doesn't sound quite right...
If someone would take Iraq for example and show how it satisfies those three points alone I'd be really grateful. Otherwise maybe it's time to put the brakes on Phase Two.
1) What is the situation like in Iraq/Iran/Libya/other potential targets?
2) How are the people and human rights? Even if the country isn't linked directly to a terrorist agenda, maybe some help towards stabilization can be offered in the way of military support to make sure radicals don't gain power...and yes, I am in favour of cultural interference from the outside. Every country affects us all globally so we might as well realize we have an investment in keeping all places relatively steady.
3) How, specifically, is the country in question linked to terrorism, is there any one person/organization we're after, or are we just gonna roll in a helluva lot of firepower and somehow ensure everyone who may have the glimmer of violence in their eyes becomes our friend? That doesn't sound quite right...
If someone would take Iraq for example and show how it satisfies those three points alone I'd be really grateful. Otherwise maybe it's time to put the brakes on Phase Two.
<< No, I believe you are just looking at the "picture" as it pertains to the Gulf War incorrectly......
>>Perhaps so. It's not like any of us have the security clearance to get to the bottom of this anyhow. Even if someone did, I don't think they'd be at liberty to profess it on a public forum such as ATOT.
Still, I personally think of the Gulf War as more of a police action than a war. Either that, or the objectives that you keep referring to were rather short-sighted.
Now that Somalia's Prime Minister has said America could deploy troops in the country to monitor and track down alleged terrorists activities there, I think we should back off the shutting down of communications.
It would do us a world of good in international perception, and let us stay on the good side of the UN.
It would do us a world of good in international perception, and let us stay on the good side of the UN.
War has only just started: Bush
"Former Saudi intelligence chief Turki bin Faisal said this week that while "no one would boo or hiss" if the US helped opposition groups to oust Hussein, an Afghanistan-style bombing assault on Iraq would be unacceptable.
It was a fear of unravelling an international coalition that stopped former president George Bush from rolling into Baghdad after US-led forces prevailed in the 1990 Gulf War.
That decision was made at the urging of General Colin Powell, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Today, as Secretary of State, he will be pivotal in determining Washington's policy on its most intractable enemy.
"
ATLien247. you don't need a top secret security clearance to know why the US did not go into Iraq.
I think there were three reasons why the US went to war then.
1) The US had security agreements with Kuwait. They were invaded, we were bound by treaties to assist.
2) The US did not want Saddam to get the money and power from Kuwati oil.
3) Oil, the US needs it for a stable economy.
Those three goals were met by kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.
"Former Saudi intelligence chief Turki bin Faisal said this week that while "no one would boo or hiss" if the US helped opposition groups to oust Hussein, an Afghanistan-style bombing assault on Iraq would be unacceptable.
It was a fear of unravelling an international coalition that stopped former president George Bush from rolling into Baghdad after US-led forces prevailed in the 1990 Gulf War.
That decision was made at the urging of General Colin Powell, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Today, as Secretary of State, he will be pivotal in determining Washington's policy on its most intractable enemy.
"
ATLien247. you don't need a top secret security clearance to know why the US did not go into Iraq.
I think there were three reasons why the US went to war then.
1) The US had security agreements with Kuwait. They were invaded, we were bound by treaties to assist.
2) The US did not want Saddam to get the money and power from Kuwati oil.
3) Oil, the US needs it for a stable economy.
Those three goals were met by kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter