At this rate in Iraq... - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2003, 03:42 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:26 AM
I am sorry, but I and others, strongly believe that there would not be as many attacks if there were actual troops in Iraq from Muslim countries. It would make it look like less of a United States occupation....for starters.

My .02.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 05:30 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am sorry, but I and others, strongly believe that there would not be as many attacks if there were actual troops in Iraq from Muslim countries. It would make it look like less of a United States occupation....for starters.

My .02.
Which Middle Eastern country would you trust in such a situation?
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 05:35 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Saudi Arabia,Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan

I said Muslim, not Middle Eastern. Maybe I am talking out my ass, but based on my recall, the Arab League did not support us because largely, they did not view this as a UN operation.

Do you think that if there were Muslim forces involved in this from the beginning, that this would have looked less like an occupation from a western nation, than it does now?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 05:46 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:26 AM
The Persian Gulf War coalition consisted of the follwoing Muslim nations:

Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates.

I someone is there and is not a considered a Muslim Nation, please forgive me. But, do you think this list would add more legitimacy to the operations we are engaged in now.

I think it is a FAILURE of pre-War diplomacy to have not gotten a braoder coalition. Clearly we were not in immediate danger.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 05:52 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:26 AM
[Q]Twenty-one of the 34 countries that contributed forces or materiel to the first Persian Gulf War -- such as France, Syria, Pakistan, Canada, Germany and Norway -- have either refused to support the current conflict or have asked not to be identified because of public opposition to U.S. actions. In 1991, for instance, France provided 17,000 troops, 350 tanks, 38 aircraft and 14 ships. Syria provided 19,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and 270 tanks, and Germany provided five minesweepers, three other ships and eight aircraft.[/Q]


We seemed to be able to get along with these nations twelve years ago. Saudi Arabia, the nation we have been protecting for 12 years wouldn't let us launch from the defense bases we built to protect them from Saddam. Turkey would not let us launch from their country either.

Do you think these two neighbors, may have added some legitmacy to the war in the eyes of the people of Iraq? Maybe it would have made us viewed less as occupiers?http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1325-2003Mar20

How can this not be viewed as a Failure of Diplomacy, when Turkey, our NATO ally and Saudi Arabia, a nation we have protected refuse assistance?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 11:03 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The Persian Gulf War coalition consisted of the follwoing Muslim nations:

Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates.

I someone is there and is not a considered a Muslim Nation, please forgive me. But, do you think this list would add more legitimacy to the operations we are engaged in now.
Bahrain, maybe Niger and a couple others. I think you can understand the irony in getting these nations to join us in a war whose stated aim is to remove a tyrant (as opposed to a war whose stated aim is to take back Kuwait).
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 12:18 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Dreadsox,

The task that many countries committed to, often verbally, in the first Persian Gulf War was far different from this one. The removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was a goal that was much easier for most countries to understand.

The stubbornness and often in my opinion, unwise decisions, by many middle eastern countries, in deciding a course of action to deal with Saddam, effectively, is not the fault of the Bush Administration. If there is anything to fault on the USA, its that the USA did not effectively act following the events of 1998. Kosovo came up in the Spring of 1999, and then 2000 was an election year. The Clinton administration simply kicked the issue of Iraq down the road to the next administration.

75% of the worlds energy supply is in the middle east. Anything that remotely threatens that can be considered and "immediate danger". Jimmy Carter actually stated he was ready to use Nuclear Weapons to insure the safety of such energy supplies.

Many of the Gulf States that did not publicly support the campaign did so privately. I can't point to anything specific, exept to say this has been widely practiced form of behavior in the region for decades. Although there are plans to withdraw US troops from Saudi Arabia, there were troops there during the war and there still are troops there.

Syria may have provided 19,000 troops and 270 tanks in the first Gulf War, but they were virtually useless. They were only able to advance a couple dozen miles before many of their units got lost, and high percentage of their vehicles broke down. This Syrian Armored Division was transported to Kuwait, by US ships, and it wasn't cheap. Considering Syria's shaddy past and their overally capabilities, I'm happy they were not involved in operation Iraqi Freedom.

As to countries, Muslim countries, that might be benificial to peacekeeping in Iraq, I can certainly see Pakistan, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia I am less sure of though, because of their proximity to Iraq. Its widely known that countries like Qatar and Bahrain, for what ever the reason, do not trust Saudi Arabia and want a continued US presence in their countries. I'm sure Iraqi's would be concerned as well considering the two countries troubled past and close proximity to each other.

Turkish troops in Iraq especially in the North would be a recipe for a blood bath in my opinion. One of the reason the USA wanted to deploy troops to Northern Iraq among others, was to prevent any type of contact between Turkish forces and the Kurdish population.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 11:58 AM   #68
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Sting2:

At operation Desert Storm there were afik approx. 245.000 non US Soldiers

Other countries supported the US with 70.000.000.000 $, how does that compare to this Iraq war?


Quote:
Turkish troops in Iraq especially in the North would be a recipe for a blood bath in my opinion. One of the reason the USA wanted to deploy troops to Northern Iraq among others
you're absolutely right in this case, Turkey is verry agressive with Kurds in their country and they do everything they can to prevent a kurdish country (even on iraq teritory).
It's a shame that they kill kurds in their country with nato eq

euipment

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 12:10 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Sting2:

At operation Desert Storm there were afik approx. 245.000 non US Soldiers

Other countries supported the US with 70.000.000.000 $, how does that compare to this Iraq war?




you're absolutely right in this case, Turkey is verry agressive with Kurds in their country and they do everything they can to prevent a kurdish country (even on iraq teritory).
It's a shame that they kill kurds in their country with nato eq

euipment

Klaus
As for my reference to Turkey, we were not allowed to launch from our bases in there. That kind of help from them would have been nice. The help from them, does not have to be with troops in country.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 01:51 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Klaus,

There were 245,000 non-US troops at one time of another. But over 700,000 US military and military reserve personal served in the Gulf War. In addition few of the 245,000 non-US troops contributed anything to the fighting that actually happened. Most were shipped, supplied and fed, by the US government. The Syrian example I mentioned before applied to many others as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 03:17 PM   #71
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:26 PM
STING2:

so to compare it to the G.W.Bush Iraq war...
...how many US troops were there, how many non-us troops?

How much did other countries pay this time to support the war - or did this time the US pay more to other countries for the war than they received?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-12-2003, 02:43 AM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:26 PM
The coalition force had roughly a total of 250,000 troops from the USA, UK, and Australia. Around 60,000 were British and Australian troops. I don't have any figures on the money. One big difference with the last war is that each country that contributed troops played an important role in the war itself.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2003, 07:15 PM   #73
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:26 PM
So last time: more than 1/3 foreign troups, this time less than 1/4 foreign troups
last time huge cashflow to the US military from foreign governments this time...
...we don't know, we just know what they offered turkey if they would cooperate.

I never heared about important roles besides US and UK soldiers this time. But my military background is weak.

Quote:
75% of the worlds energy supply is in the middle east. Anything that remotely threatens that can be considered and "immediate danger". Jimmy Carter actually stated he was ready to use Nuclear Weapons to insure the safety of such energy supplies.
So you think it was blood for oil?
Do you know that by reducing the average fuel-consumtion of US vehicles by just 1 liter/100km would save more Oil than the US imports from the mid-east?
With this in mind you can rethink if a "saving of the mid east oil resources through war" is the intelligent approach

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-13-2003, 03:49 AM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:26 PM
If the USA did not import directly a single drop of oil from the middle east, it would still have the same level of importance I stated. The price of oil anywhere on the planet is a derivative of the Global Market Price of oil. The Global Market Price of oil is obviously directly influenced by the Supply, most of which comes from the middle east. Cut off supply from the middle east and the price of oil goes up, even in regions that import little or no oil from the middle east. The Reality is that Oil is the energy that drives the global economy. Mess with that and you mess with everything. Its not blood for oil, its fighting to protect are way of life and economic health, which effects everything.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-13-2003, 12:33 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If the USA did not import directly a single drop of oil from the middle east, it would still have the same level of importance I stated. The price of oil anywhere on the planet is a derivative of the Global Market Price of oil. The Global Market Price of oil is obviously directly influenced by the Supply, most of which comes from the middle east. Cut off supply from the middle east and the price of oil goes up, even in regions that import little or no oil from the middle east. The Reality is that Oil is the energy that drives the global economy. Mess with that and you mess with everything. Its not blood for oil, its fighting to protect are way of life and economic health, which effects everything.
Well, protecting this way of live and economic health sounds stupid, in about 50 years we won`t have any oil at all.

But the price of oil can now be controlled by the USA, with all the oil from Iraq they can actualy decide what a good price is ( in the near future ). Who needs OPEC when you have Iraq.
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com