Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 28371
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2003/5/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28371 Activity:very high
5/7     I've never seen a convincing explanation of why exactly G.H.W Bush
        didn't go all the way to Baghdad in '91.  Can anyone provide such
        an explanation?
        \_ he had a 100hrs victory with less than 200 casualties, a figure
           that he didn't expect to hold in taking the country.  Then again,
           what were the final tallies on this ass kicking?

        \_ ghwbush said the world coalition he had gathered then
           had given him authority to kick iraq out of kuwait, not
           overthrow the iraqi government.  that doesn't seem too

           incredibly far fetched to me. - danhr
        \_ The objective of the 1991 Gulf war was free Kuwait from Iraq and
           prevent Iraq from controlling 40% of Arab's oil reserve.  The
           objective was achieved without invading and occupies Iraq.
           It was a big miscalculation on Iraq's part.  Iraq had invaded
           Iran in the past with USA's blessing, Hussin didn't expect
           USA would turn against him second time around.
           \_ Um, Iraq informed the US of the plan to invade Kuwait.
              The US did not object, so Iraq took that to be implicit
              approval. Then Bush and fellows feigned shock when the
              the invasion took place.
              \_ Iraq also claimed our forces were NOT at the airport, or
                 within 100km of Bagdad.  Their credibility of facts sucks.
              \_ More proof that Israel is in control of US foreign policy.
              \_ Nyet, comrade!  They only talked to some low level official
                 in country and got an ambiguous reponse.  They heard what
                 they wanted to hear.  Please try to avoid mass rewrite of
                 key elements of history.
                 \_ Ambassador April Glaspie was a low level official?
                    \_ Yes.  Ambassador to >insert 3rd world BFE country here<
                       is never a serious position.
                       \_ Except in times of crisis and in hot-spots, I
                          tend to agree with you.
              \_ She told them effectively the US would not accept
                 Iraq invading Kuwait, regardless of what the media
                 tries to portray.  In fact, she has maintained and
                 repeated this position many times.,
                 \_ In fact, she has maintained all along that she did
                    not give "the green light" and that she was the
                    target of a "deliberate deception," but she
                    acknowledges that the majority of what was reported
                    about her meeting was true.  In other words, she
                    neither objected nor gave express approval.  Saddam
                    then read into that what he wanted. Let's not pretend
                    however that the US expressly told him not to do it.
                    \_ Is it our job to play red light/green light with
                       thugs?  I don't recall seeing that written anywhere.
                       Maybe it's in one of the Federalist Papers I missed.
                       \_ We armed them, we trained them, and we supported
                          them when they were at war with Iran.  They were
                          in effect our client state, and as such, yes,
                          we had an obligation to red light the invasion
                          if we were truly opposed to it.  We weren't,
                          so we didn't.
                          \_ US didn't arm Iraq. The Soviets and French did.
                             The Chinese sold more arms to Iraq than the US.
                 http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf
                             \_ US bad, UN good, EU good, Israel bad, PLO good,
                                Arafat good, Sharon bad, Bush bad, Chirac good,
                                France good, China good, Britain bad, Russia
                                good.  Clear now?
                                \_ Yawn.
                              \_ Exactly, Iraq arms came almost entirely from
                                 China, France, and Russia.  After all it was
                                 an exocet missile launched from a Mirage that
                                 hit the US naval vessel in 87.  During the
                                 Iran / Iraq war we should have provided more
                                 military support to crush militant islam in
                                 Iran.  So the complaint should be we did not
                                 do enough, as opposed to too much.
                                 [MOTD reformatd]
                          \_ But we did tell them not to do it.  So what's
                             the problem?  And no they weren't a client state.
                             It was a business arrangement.
                                \_ They are/were  however a client state of
                                   France.  And frankly, our assistance during
                                   the Iran / Iraq was completely justified,
                                   given the threat of militant Islam which
                                   has manifested current events.
                             \_ And here's the crux: When did we tell them
                                that? I'd love to see that url.
                                \_ You're aware this pre-dated the current
                                   concept of 'the web' and urls, right?  So
                                   the odds of getting an accurate and direct
                                   quote from that time is near zero.  When you
                                   find the url that proves it either way,
                                   please come back and let us know.  In the
                                   mean time, those of us old enough to recall
                                   the events will just have to get by with
                                   our aged and withering memories.
                                   \_ Graduated in '92. Are my memories not
                                      fresh enough for you?  'Cause I do not
                                      recall Bush telling Saddam not to do it
                                      when Iraq massed troops on the border.
                                      \_ 92?  Sorry.  You were still under the
                                         thumb of the Berkeley PC establishment.
                                         Maybe next time.
           By comparison, even now many still don't understand the logic
           behind the 2nd Gulf War.
           \_ It wasn't a second war.  It was the completion of the first
              which should've come years before GWB2 got into office.
        \_ http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
           Basically Bush Sr didn't want to get us into the situation
           that we are in now: having to occupy and rule an Arab
           nation against international opinion.
           \_ Couldn't say it better than GWB himself:
              link:tinyurl.com/amxh
              (RealPlayer file)
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/7/21-9/24 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:54440 Activity:nil
7/21    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cold_War_pilot_defections
        This week's food for thought, brought to you by People's
        Republic of Berkeley: Did you know that many US pilots defected to
        communist Cuba?  South Korea pilots defected to communist
        North Korea? Iran<->Iraq pilots defected to each other?
        W Germany pilots defected to E Germany? Taiwan/ROC pilots
	...
2012/3/26-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:54347 Activity:nil
3/26    Things I learned from History: Lincoln was photographed with
        killer. Lincoln had 3 male lovers (he was bisexual!).
        Kennedy had an affair with a Nazi spy. Elenore Roosevelt
        was a lesbian!!!  Nerdy looking Ben Franklin was a suspected
        killer and quite a ladies man. WTF???
        \_ Did it mention anything about Washington and the cherry tree?
	...
2011/11/6-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:54212 Activity:nil
11/6    By a 2:1 ratio Americans think that the Iraq war was not worth it:
        http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
        \_ Bad conservatives. You should never change your mind, and you
           should never admit mistakes.
           \_ Most "tea party" conservatives still support the war. It is the
              weak-kneed moderates that have turned against America.
	...
2011/2/16-4/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:54041 Activity:nil
2/16    "Iraqi: I'm proud my WMD lies led to war in Iraq"
        http://www.csua.org/u/sl0 (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ Duh.  the best thing that could ever happen to a country is
           the US declaring war on it.  cf: japan, germany, and now iraq.
           the US winning a war with it.  cf: japan, germany, and now iraq.
	...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
	...
2010/9/26-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53966 Activity:nil
9/24    Toture is what gave us the false info on WMD and Iraq.
        http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/09/25/opinion/1248069087414/my-tortured-decision.html
        Where is the apology jblack?
	...
2010/7/20-8/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53889 Activity:low
7/20    Is jblack still on? What about the rest of the pro-war cheerleaders?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_iraq_inquiry
        \_ War is fought for the glory of generals and the economics of the
           war machine.  Looking for "justifications" for it is like looking
           for sense in the necronomicon.  Just accept it and move on.
        \_ When we fight with Red China, what nation will we use as a proxy?
	...
2010/2/22-3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53722 Activity:nil
2/20    Ok serious question, NOT political.  This is straight up procedural.
        Has it been declared that we didn't find WMD in iraq? (think so).
        So why did we go into iraq (what was the gain), and if nobody really
        knows, why is nobody looking for the reason?
        \_ Political stability, military strategy (Iran), and to prevent
           Saddam from financing terrorism.
	...
Cache (5195 bytes)
www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. I've been told that the same passage appears on page 489 of Bush and Scowcroft's book, A World Transformed (Alfred A. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose. We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid. The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.