• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

When do you think the US will invade iraq? (and some questions about Desert Storm)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Hindsight is 20/20. The question then and it's the one that still remains is "What's behind door #2?". I don't think we have any idea what's gonna happen if he's gone. That's why when the CNO calls me to get permission to go in, I'm gonna tell him no. 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah, but there were plenty of people back then saying that Saddam needed to go and that the time to do it was when an American army group was still on the ground. It WAS a calculated position; it's not like the leaders didn;t consider the option.

Oh, and when the CNO calls you and asks you, aren't you supposed to say, "What do YOU think we should do, SIR?" 😉
 
Originally posted by: jjones
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There was a tremendous wave of disgust at the extent of the massacre. It had become a slaughter of massive proportions and people were throwing up. We were looking barbaric.
Click to expand...
Complete nonsense. Maybe you felt this way but don't ascribe it to others just because you feel the world should be holding hands and singing kumbaya.
Click to expand...

rofl

owned. gg. 🙂

 
There was a massacre when the Iraqis fled kuwait on the main highway. We creamated them by the thousands. There were photographs in Time of burned bodies chared in place in the act of fleeing. It caused a wave of disgust and was a topic of much hand wringing. There was much reassessment of whether we had gone too far, if we weren't just killing helpless victoms of Sadam's war machine instead of an evil enemy. Everywhere the Iraqis could pull it off they were giving up in droves. It was a route and a slaughter and we hesitated because of decency, in my opinion.

__________________________________________________________________

jjones: "Complete nonsense. Maybe you felt this way but don't ascribe it to others just because you feel the world should be holding hands and singing kumbaya.
____________________________________________________________________

If I told you you were an idiot, jj, would it make it true. Saying something is nonsense is, of course quite childish but it's OK. You just go ahead and pretend you're a man and people who prefer to see peace are nut cases. 😀 Oh man, what a commedian.

I was thinking of the Tuskegee thing and the SF incident but the second is more comprehensive:


Link 1

Link 2
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There was a massacre when the Iraqis fled kuwait on the main highway. We creamated them by the thousands. There were photographs in Time of burned bodies chared in place in the act of fleeing. It caused a wave of disgust and was a topic of much hand wringing. There was much reassessment of whether we had gone too far, if we weren't just killing helpless victoms of Sadam's war machine instead of an evil enemy. Everywhere the Iraqis could pull it off they were giving up in droves. It was a route and a slaughter and we hesitated because of decency, in my opinion.

__________________________________________________________________

jjones: "Complete nonsense. Maybe you felt this way but don't ascribe it to others just because you feel the world should be holding hands and singing kumbaya.
____________________________________________________________________

If I told you you were an idiot, jj, would it make it true. Saying something is nonsense is, of course quite childish but it's OK. You just go ahead and pretend you're a man and people who prefer to see peace are nut cases. 😀 Oh man, what a commedian.

I was thinking of the Tuskegee thing and the SF incident but the second is more comprehensive:


Link 1

Link 2
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you have got to be kidding..............if that is the case, that what we did there was wrong, I suppose you should also implicate many battles in WWII including Normandy where men were lost by the thousands and literaly "picked off" on the beaches, or many of the battles of WWI, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War................Do you understand that at the time of the Iraqi exodus from Kuwait that they were firing live rounds??? It was the stark fact of that breif battle that saved the lives of thousands of other Iraqis when they realized exactly how overmatched they were!

I'm sure a "bloodless" war would be more to some peoples liking, but, those whom accused us of a "massacre" were most likely not there at that time, nor have they been faced with any situation similar...............I suppose it may have been preffered for us to lose a bunch of men???? People whom have not been there seem able to only see things from a point of view which is to their liking................problem is, many times it hurts and damages the facts of the situation as it really was..............

 
I am guessing it'll be closer to election time. After all, during a war the president's approval rating usually shoots up.

 

The US has invaded Iraq & has never left......Just increase the Jeans & T-shirts shipment to Iraq so we wouldn't need send the missiles/bombers over.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ToBeMe, all those points you're making you are making into the air. They have nothing to do with what I said.
Click to expand...

Well, I kind of figured you would see it that way, and that's OK, but, I'm also glad to know others agree..............to say what happened in Iraq a Massacre and to not have the ability to see what did occur saved many more Iraqis from their death almost always comes from those whom have not been in such a situation and can not grasp what occurs in such. There was no "wave of disgust" or "wringing of hands" for the people involved.................only a sense of success and relief that we had accomplished what we set out to do and made it out alive...............
 
I called a massacre what happened on the road to Baghdad. And who are you to say that of all those who were there, none felt disgust. Here is a little something on it here. I merely stated facts, not value judgments on how events related to troop death, ours or theirs.
 
Sorry, but you have got to be kidding..............if that is the case, that what we did there was wrong, I suppose you should also implicate many battles in WWII including Normandy where men were lost by the thousands and literaly "picked off" on the beaches, or many of the battles of WWI, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War................Do you understand that at the time of the Iraqi exodus from Kuwait that they were firing live rounds??? It was the stark fact of that breif battle that saved the lives of thousands of other Iraqis when they realized exactly how overmatched they were!
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong--

It really was one of the reasons we stopped the war. I personally think the Iraqis got what was coming to them, but THERE was a massive loss of life by the Iraqis on the main highway and the world was getting a little upset about it. It was one of many reasons that we stopped the attack when we did. I can find you some links if you want.
 
The Highway of Death operation was during the full retreat of Saddum's elite republican guard from Kuwait. Those troops had just looted, razed and raped (literally, the women of ) Kuwait. They were on their way home, mission accomplished. I doubt you could find any Kuwaiti women then or now who thought the Highway of Death massacre went too far and I'm incliced to agree with them.
 
the times of london ran a story saturday saying that the defence dept had leaked details of the forthcoming invasion palns to the ny times at the end of last week, so i dont have a link to that as its subscription, basiaccly they are planning on using saudi and a early 2003 war before it gets hot wether. and presumeably they will use turkey. I had guessed they may do a scaled down version using local troops, but it looks like they figure they will need a lot of ground troops to defeat the iraqies and the locals cant muster that many.
 
Originally posted by: aphexII
Well now that we know that were pretty much gonna invade iraq one of these days... When do you think it will happen?

My other question deals with Desert Storm. I was too young at the time to completely grasp the whole war so please forgive me. I was just curious why it seems were fighting the same war over again, why didnt we get rid of Saddam the first time?
Click to expand...

Do u really think they wanted to get rid of Saddam in Desert Storm? Forget about it- the region was more predictable with Saddam so they kept him. Besides killing him would have made him even more popular in Iraq (martyr). In addition to that, the true goal of the war was met - to get those Oil wells back. Oil is flowing again - everything is fine.
Why do u think they will start this new war? Reelection of Mr. Bush is my answer - so this war is not going to start before winter/spring 2003

my2cents
 
Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
the times of london ran a story saturday saying that the defence dept had leaked details of the forthcoming invasion palns to the ny times at the end of last week, so i dont have a link to that as its subscription, basiaccly they are planning on using saudi and a early 2003 war before it gets hot wether. and presumeably they will use turkey. I had guessed they may do a scaled down version using local troops, but it looks like they figure they will need a lot of ground troops to defeat the iraqies and the locals cant muster that many.
Click to expand...

That would make the 3rd leak since the middle of last week, looks like the dept of misinformation has been quite busy.

 
Yes, the Dept of Misinformation is hoping to kill Sadam by causing him to catch pneumonia from constantly wetting his pants.
 
I totally disagree with what many of you are thinking that we should have just let the soldiers of Iraq ?retreat? from Kuwait and back to Iraq and not kill them. I challenge you site some examples of wars when the enemy was retreating and did not regroup to form another attack or when the attacking force said, oh they are leaving lets just let them go. Let me tell you I may be a bit barbaric I guess, but I would kill every one of them, they were not women and children they were soldiers, combatants. It wasn?t like they put down their weapons and surrendered, there were plenty who did that in Desert Storm and were detained then at the end of the war released. I know yes I was brainwashed by the Marines, can?t think for myself, but when there is a armed military force who most likely will soon be coming back to try to kill me and my fellow Marines I will kill them in an instant. This same aggressive attitude needs to be in place on the war on terrorism, either you are supporting us or against us. It is quite a bit easier to pass judgment when you are safe in the United States and someone else is out there fighting and making these decisions. Like was said earlier 20/20 vision to the past is easy to pick mistakes, but it is even easier to a detached observer who was not there nor will never be.
 
schmedy, the discussion here is about some of the reasons we didn't finish off Sadam. I gave one reason. Whatever your opinion about it, it was still a reason. I don't eat boiled eggs cause I don't like them. I don't like them, get it. You can tell me they are delicious, that they are good for me, any thing you like. Nothing is gonna change the fact that I don't like them and that's the reason I ain't gonna eat them. Many many eople were turned off by the slaughter; it was widly discussed, it factored in on us stopping short in my judgment. Got it yet? Should have slaughtered them, shouldn't have slaughtered them, i hope you see is irrelevant to the point.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
schmedy, the discussion here is about some of the reasons we didn't finish off Sadam. I gave one reason. Whatever your opinion about it, it was still a reason. I don't eat boiled eggs cause I don't like them. I don't like them, get it. You can tell me they are delicious, that they are good for me, any thing you like. Nothing is gonna change the fact that I don't like them and that's the reason I ain't gonna eat them. Many many eople were turned off by the slaughter; it was widly discussed, it factored in on us stopping short in my judgment. Got it yet? Should have slaughtered them, shouldn't have slaughtered them, i hope you see is irrelevant to the point.
Click to expand...

That's a great post and position on this......................I disagree also on what took place and as it concerns Saddam, but, that's my opinion, I won't change and don't figure to change others opinion, but, we are all still free to voice exactly what we believe and why. At this point, the whole matter of that "war" is hindsight and everyone knows hindsight is 20/20 so it's easy to make conclusions as to what took place and why....................

 
Jesuz H Crist, ToBeMe, it has nothing to do with 20/20 hind site. People weren't disgusted in hindsite. They were having coniptions when the killing was taking place, as it was reported. The negative reaction was real. It happened. The only opinion involved here is mine that it had a lot to do with why we stopped. People were upset and polititions don't like that. I wasn't running the war so I can't quantify the degree this mattered. All I know is that it was deemed a factor at that time. Thanks.
 
Well Freakin' A Moon.......Beam............I could give a flying leap about you and some of your peacenik pals then.................were you there??? Did you see first hand what took place???? I don't think so! I also KNOW for every ONE of your "disgusted" people, there were and are 5 whom agree with what was done and how it was done! The POSITIVE REACTION WAS REAL...........IT HAPPENED! As for "Why We Stopped"...................I have another, widely known and accepted answer to that also..............Bush Sr. didn't want to stop, nor did Gen. Schwarzkopf...............we stopped because the UN pressured enough Senators and members of NATO into believeing that if we went into Baghdad we would be going beyond the realm of the predetermined objectives and support from both entities would end thus the coalition would too. The fact is, Saddam thought here could waltz into wherever he wanted and go unfettered by anyone because of intimidation..............he was called on his bluff and rightfully put back into his place.
Anyone can write a piece for the media and claim the reason for not proceeding into Baghdad was "Disgust" over a "massacre" or for that matter because our guys were tired and wanted to get home for some R & R................You don't know the exact truth, neither do I, but I do know what took place and how it took place had much more support than did those you describe. You can believe what you want, frankly I could give a rats _ss, but your condescending methods and "Holier Than Thou" attitude is just a bunch of BS. Try intimidating someone else.............

Oh, and Thank You Too............😉
 
The scope of the Gulf War was limited well before the Highway of Death action.

The media may have felt sorry for the exiting combatants but in war you kill your enemy. It's amazing how often this simple truth becomes blurred behind the abstraction of modern journalism.
 
When they least expect it!

In fact, it's happening right now. CNN is having a special report about it right now!





Kidding
 
Desert Shield/Storm was the most successful military action in modern history.

I guess that depends on how you measure success. I am confident that the rebels that we encouraged to rise up against Saddam and then left hanging would not share that opinion -- that is if they were alive today. If you measure success by how much of the enemy we killed compared to US casualties then I would agree -- as was Granada.

There was a tremendous wave of disgust at the extent of the massacre. It had become a slaughter of massive proportions and people were throwing up. We were looking barbaric.

Actually Moonbeam, there was a bunch of hoopin?-n-hollerin?. Americans love a good war.

Xerox Man, It's not the first page in the history books, but the US has done the same to its citizens many times.

In this case Moonbeam is right. Sherman is one good example -- 30,000 civilian deaths during his glorious march to the sea. If the Union was right to wage war, then those were still US citizens not foreign nationals.

Um, sorry, but the UN made damned sure that WAS NOT one of the coalitions objectives from the beginning.................The US wanted to, and the UK would have went along with it, but, the UN specifically did not want him targeted.................

Good point. It should have just been the US and the UK -- with the provisional governor taking tea in Baghdad shortly thereafter.

We had a lot better reason for invading Iraq then than anything I have heard recently. I would love to hear more than the beating of the War Drums and the Cries of the War Party to convince me to send my son. The whole idea of a War on Terror is a war without an end. There will always be another rouge nation to invade. When are we getting to China? Or, do we really have the stomach for that one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top