The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

RandomChances

I remember talking to some of my mates about the first gulf war and they were on about how it was unjust and america (and allies) was only doing it for the oils ect I pointed out to them that a big powerful expansionist country(Iraq) had just invaded a little one(Kuwait) and did'nt they thing that the "civilised" world should do something about it? They begrudedly agreed but said it was wrong as lots of contries do this but the "civilised" world is'nt interested as they dont have oil.

My point was that it was a just war (ie stopping an agressive state) but probably for the wrong reasons (only realy interested in oil)

Anyway I see a lot of simularities in this one. Sadam by most people definition was a dangerous egotistical butcher who repressed his own people and was a danger to the region. So do you think that the "civilised" world should of done something about it? What about places like North Korea, Burma, if they controled vast oil supplies do you think the regimes would still be in power ? What about China ?. Who decides what is right or wrong and who should enforce it?

__________________
I have more than the average number of arm and legs

stroller

China, N.Korea and Burma are not good examples:
China is too powerful to tackle without starting WW3, both Myanmar and N.Korea are too close to China to invade without China getting involved.

Otherwise, I agree with your comment.
I'd add strategic reasons as a 'hidden' motive, it's not all about oil.

Milkman

^ Gulf War I, was promoted by the U.S.

The former U.S. ambassador to Kuwait has testified under oath about the communication between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuawait.

It was officially called an Iraqi "internal" matter.

Iraq did not recognize Kuwait until the early 1960s.

A Wahhabbi family basically gave Kuwait to another Wahhabbi family in the early 20th Century.

RandomChances

Thats why I put them in. If you say it is just to stand up for certain things, then where do you draw the line ie we could all agree that Burma was a represive regime but not do anything about it as the risk/reward just is'nt there, same with China is it right for the world to let China do whatever it wants as its too big and powerful. What if Iraq was as big and powerful as China ?

stroller

Ah, I see.
The answer to this would be that you intervene whereever there's a good chance of being successful.
Which still leaves the question, why Iraq, why not some African or South-American murderous regimes?

Bob

I would assume that it is because there is only a finite number of troops and countries willing to shed their own blood on other peoples problems. Also no one in Africa threatened to kill the current POTUS's daddy.

RandomChances

Well I think we coverd the "Why Iraq" bit. It has oil and "strategic" significance also it would of probably been pretty up there on a list of "countries you would like to invade" As to why not the others I suspect its cos the powers to be could'nt really give a toss.

It would be nice to see some of the more right wing views on this, they are probaly looking for something to cut and paste in as we speak

As a matter of intrest what countries/regimes would you support a war of "liberation" against....nah thats another thread save it for tomorrow

Bob

It does help them surround Iran to make a policy of containment more feasible and it also cuts off Iran from 2 countries who would probably aid it in a time of war:

stroller

There are several countries in Africa which harbour known terrorists and allow these to operate on their territory, this includes bomb attacks on US embassies.

But they have little natural resources, and are of no strategic value.

RandomChances

Yes mate, I was'nt being sarcastic on the strategic bit, just put it in " " as stroll brought it up.

Nice map although not being an American I did actually know where the countries where

RandomChances

Sudan, Somalia ? What about Yemen although it is not in Africa

Bob

The map wasn't for geography's sake, more for the position of the bases, which is something I wasn't too sure about.

Storekeeper

So what exactly do you think should be done about it? Are you suggesting the US should take it for action or might another fine country step up for a little heavy lifting ? Or do you really just not have a point or a plan or even a clue? Seems to me you're one of the posters who think/thought we should have just left Saddam in charge to murder, rape, torture ... why aren't you hapy to let thing remain the status quo in these other countries ?

__________________
"England forever; the USA one day longer"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RandomChances

What do you think should be done about it SK ? America like it or not is the only country in the world with the militery capability to enforce any change of regime. Should the UN take a firmer role?

Storekeeper

Here we go again ... SK asks a question and the response will be a question putting the burden on my shoulders. Then I'll get bashed for not asnwering the question. Or if I do answer the question I'm ignorant trailer trash, warmongering slime. OK ? Then my answer is this ... everybody seems to be saying we fugged it away in Iraq and our military can't do anything right. I think we should do something about it now ... I'd like to see the UK/AUS/CAN/NZ team up and show us how it's done. The US will support in every way, dollars and equipment, except manpower.

RandomChances

Hey I dont do these political thing often.... I was just asking what you would do>

As I stated at the start of this I think that it was the right thing to do but probably for the wrong reasons. Unfortunatly winning a war is easy I dont think there is enough thought into what comes after.
Population wise those countries together probably arent as much as some of your larger states, what about europe, japan (with its large economy should'nt it take on some share) or even russia

Butterfly

Well the main question is how pre-emptive do we want to be ? and who should be making the decision ?

I think the main concern over the Iraq war is not so much the US removing Saddam and invading the country, but more about their unilateral approach, ignoring allies, the UN and creating a sense of emergency that didn't exist. Basically taking the rest of the world for fools and monkeys. Guess what ? who is the fool and who is the monkey now ?

The US will eventually leave Baghdad ala Saigon with the world to witness their inability to fight and win easily a conventional war. So it's not all bad. A lesson to be learn for the future.

Mr Earl

Ever the optimist!

stroller

You've missed the point of my post, which was a response to Bob.

No need to draw conclusions I haven't implied and snap at me.

Mhz

I remember a Chinese General threatening to use nukes if America bull shits with China about Taiwan.Still GWB is inviting Hu Jintao to the white house for better diplomatic relations and Trade.