Gulf War I?

von Neufeld · Post by **von Neufeld** » 2003-03-23 02:24am

I have seen people refer to this war as Gulf War III and the liberation of Kuwait as Gulf War II, so what was Gulf War I then?

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-23 02:35am

As far as I know this qualifies as Gulf War II, unless people divide the 1991 war into its two phases , Desert Shield and Desert Storm , as GW I and GW II.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-23 03:03am

von Neufeld wrote:I have seen people refer to this war as Gulf War III and the liberation of Kuwait as Gulf War II, so what was Gulf War I then?

Gulf War I: (US-backed) Iraq verses Iran
Gulf War II: Iraq verses US & everyone else fighting to restore Kuwait to its rightful dictatorship.
Gulf War III: Iraq verses US fighting to build an empire.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-23 03:21am

Huh, never heard of the Iran-Iraq War (80-88) refered to as a "Gulf War" per se, bit I suppose it works.

Gulf War II: Iraq verses US & everyone else fighting to restore Kuwait to its rightful dictatorship.
Gulf War III: Iraq verses US fighting to build an empire.

Love your summations of each conflict.
Yes , the Kuwaitis are bastards, but like Saddam before he fucked up, they are OUR bastards. And indeed we supported his war witrh Iran, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if hes a psychopath

Welcome to Realpolitik 101

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-23 03:43am

We actually supported both sides in the First Persian Gulf War.

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2003-03-23 08:21am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We actually supported both sides in the First Persian Gulf War.

Didn't we just sell the iranians weapons to get out hostages back???

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-23 08:46am

Darksider wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We actually supported both sides in the First Persian Gulf War.

Didn't we just sell the iranians weapons to get out hostages back???

No, the US was trying to buy out the Iranians as well, plying them with weapons and more fun stuff.

Its a cold war thing...

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-03-23 10:33am

WE ARE NOT BUILDING A FUCKING EMPIRE. IF I HEAR THIS ONE MORE TIME I AM GOING TO KILL SOMEONE. If we are building an empire like so many claim, why not conquer Mexico. Its a neighboring country that expands our nation and gives an immense supply of cheap labor for further empire building. Its not like anyone in the world can stop us. The U.N. couldn't do jackshit if the U.S. really wanted to build an empire. We are top dogs and our access to WMD gives us a type of godhead. Bow before us or suffer pestilence, famine, war, and death. We will flood your streets with plague and rain fire on your city.

Guess what. WE don't.

Sure we are fighting this war for oil. But the guise of peaceful Iraq is a good one and actually noble one as well. If we go through on our word, we will do a great service to the Arab world dispite our less than perfect intentions.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-03-23 04:39pm

We're building an Empire! :p And we did sell the Iranians weapons. There was the public deal for the hostages, and some thorugh an Israeli intermediary some time after that.

Akm72 · Post by **Akm72** » 2003-03-23 04:49pm

It's more accurate to say the Iraq was sponsored by France and Russia before and during it's war with Iran. All their weapons came from those two countries, and France even supplied a nuclear reactor to Saddam, with the express purpose of allowing him to develop nuclear weapons. You can't have a more loving international relationship than when you're willing to support their nuke program.

The US was a pretty minor suger-daddy to Saddam in comparison.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-23 06:18pm

Dark Hellion wrote:WE ARE NOT BUILDING A FUCKING EMPIRE.

Rumpsfelt disagrees with you.

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 06:22pm

And that equates to Empire Building outside of your own delusions how?

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-23 06:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:And that equates to Empire Building outside of your own delusions how?

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Translation: we have a white mans' burden to bring our brand civilization to the savages regardless of if they happen to want it or not.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 06:38pm

Enlightenment wrote:
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Translation: we have a white mans' burden to bring our brand civilization to the savages regardless of if they happen to want it or not.

Sounds to me like it's more a case where we want to build a world where people don't fly planes into are buildings. It sounds to me like they are simply trying to build good will and a world friendly to the US.

That's a highly ambiguos quote to accuse them of trying to build an American Empire.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-23 06:46pm

Translation: we have a white mans' burden to bring our brand civilization to the savages regardless of if they happen to want it or not.

Translation: leap in logic.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-23 06:49pm

Unfortunately were NOT building an empire.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gulf War I?

Gulf War I?

Re: Gulf War I?